Draw Down

[Fisherking]

yes no

I don't care who fills the void, military installations on soverign soil is ethically wrong and crippilingly exspensive.

OMG!

Then why is Andy Jackson one of your heros?

[Strike For The South]

OMG!

Then why is Andy Jackson one of your heros?

Isolationism and a withdrawal from the world stage are not completley intertwined

Because he was an orney arrogant bastard who killed men for disrespecting him

Not to mention his two regerts in LIFE were that he did not kill more people

I have very different metrics for admration than most people

[Centurion1]

acin what experience do you have with the military?

and a 16 man platoon is the norm now. two squads and two fireteams. 8 men to a squad. do you understand the reprecussions of fighting with a 16 man squad when your not fighting scum with antiquated weapons using terror tactics. what those numbers can result in if you were to fight a real army even one like North Korea.

the military is already stretched thin to cut more manpower would be foolish and unwise. the US needs the biggest military in the world for many reasons. Your isolationist policy is bull and completely untenable.

and military installations on sovreign soil are not ethically wrong...... many countries welcome american bases. even in japan the minority want to remove the base.

cutting manpower doesnt save money. cutting r and d does. you want our soldiers to go out with inferior weapons and protection and fight with antiquated weapons systems? How about you save some money from something else in government like healthcare or social security. The military does more for jobs and the ecconomy than both of those.

[Fisherking]

Isolationism and a withdrawal from the world stage are not completley intertwined

Because he was an orney arrogant bastard who killed men for disrespecting him

Not to mention his two regerts in LIFE were that he did not kill more people

I have very different metrics for admration than most people

So his adventures in Florida and treatment of the Indian Tribes have no effect on you, yet they are the very same as the actions you are condemning?

odd...

[Centurion1]

So his adventures in Florida and treatment of the Indian Tribes have no effect on you, yet they are the very same as the actions you are condemning?

odd...

lol undoubtedly worse. but we forgive people we put on money i guess

[Strike For The South]

acin what experience do you have with the military?

Means jack all

and a 16 man platoon is the norm now. two squads and two fireteams. 8 men to a squad. do you understand the reprecussions of fighting with a 16 man squad when your not fighting scum with antiquated weapons using terror tactics. what those numbers can result in if you were to fight a real army even one like North Korea.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. Not only is this style of thinking archaic and doesn't realize we have no enimies left to fight who don't use terror tactics. It complelty assumes we could never draw up when shit really hits the fan

Which it won't becuase conventional warfare espacillay between major powers is on the way out, no one is stupid enough to risk invasion and occupation. It costs to much

the military is already stretched thin to cut more manpower would be foolish and unwise. the US needs the biggest military in the world for many reasons. Your isolationist policy is bull and completely untenable.

That's why we are closing the bases. I have plans for everything!

and military installations on sovreign soil are not ethically wrong...... many countries welcome american bases. even in japan the minority want to remove the base

If you don't thing having armed men on another countries soil is wrong then there is something wrong with you. There would be a shit storm if someone tried that here

cutting manpower doesnt save money. cutting r and d does. you want our soldiers to go out with inferior weapons and protection and fight with antiquated weapons systems? How about you save some money from something else in government like healthcare or social security. The military does more for jobs and the ecconomy than both of those.

Lol, once again the cost of forigen installtions is a big deal, sure some R&D will be cut but with a smaller force we will get more bang for the buck. And I would also ask you to please not question my patriotism, that gets us nowhere

[Strike For The South]

So his adventures in Florida and treatment of the Indian Tribes have no effect on you, yet they are the very same as the actions you are condemning?

odd...


lol undoubtedly worse. but we forgive people we put on money i guess

A morally reprehensible action but this is thrid time the arguement has diverted to something other than the budget

You can lulz me with gotcha moments all you want but it doesn't change the fact people are dying, debt is rising, and America is betrating her principles

[Kagemusha]

Maybe you guys should only develop or buy a decent AFV? Bradley carries 4 men and its main purpose is to carry people around.Talk about bang for a buck! :P

[Fisherking]

A morally reprehensible action but this is thrid time the arguement has diverted to something other than the budget

You can lulz me with gotcha moments all you want but it doesn't change the fact people are dying, debt is rising, and America is betrating her principles

It depends on which principles you are talking about.

Cutting the military will do zip to fix it either.

The first thing you have to do is elect someone with principles...good luck with that one.

Elected Politicians put us into the conflicts and only Elected Politicians can get us out.

You are blaming people who don’t want to get shot at and forgetting who put them there.

Besides it is a strange way to handle it.

If you think the police screwed up a raid do you demand cuts in the police force?

[Strike For The South]

It depends on which principles you are talking about.

Cutting the military will do zip to fix it either.

The first thing you have to do is elect someone with principles...good luck with that one.

Elected Politicians put us into the conflicts and only Elected Politicians can get us out.

You are blaming people who don’t want to get shot at and forgetting who put them there.

Besides it is a strange way to handle it.

If you think the police screwed up a raid do you demand cuts in the police force?

Wars of invasion, militiraized principalities across the globe. A military budget which is adding to the debt when it quite frankly doesn't need to be there. The American people put them there, we supported war becuase we don't feel it. We listend to Bush because WMDs are teh scary and it's quite simple to whip up a populace.

The onus falls on the citizen

[Fisherking]

But the point is valid.

Do you fire the police force for the mistakes of city hall?

The forces are for security. When they are deployed they are no longer security. When you don’t have them then some bully is going to get cocky.

There are thousands of programs that can be cut from Government but you chose defense.

Go to city hall and demand they cut costs by cutting the police and see what people think...

[Strike For The South]

But the point is valid.

No it's not, analogies are cancer to debate but I'll induldge you

Do you fire the police force for the mistakes of city hall?

You do if they are quartering themselves in homes, costing more than we can afford, and are unecessarily bloated.

The forces are for security. When they are deployed they are no longer security. When you don’t have them then some bully is going to get cocky.

Yawn, again with this non-exsistant threat.

There are thousands of programs that can be cut from Government but you chose defense.

Oh trust me I have more, lots more.

Go to city hall and demand they cut costs by cutting the police and see what people think...

The budget is fine here, I do have issues with the PD but once again, cancer.

[Fisherking]

No it's not, analogies are cancer to debate but I'll induldge you


You do if they are quartering themselves in homes, costing more than we can afford, and are unecessarily bloated.



Yawn, again with this non-exsistant threat.


Oh trust me I have more, lots more.


The budget is fine here, I do have issues with the PD but once again, cancer.

No it is not. It is the same.

They are your security in a world where others want to hurt you.

Is Homeland Security going to save you? In fact those would be the first place I would cut.

They are window dressing and DoD is your wall.

If they are doing something wrong it is because you the American People are allowing Politicians to get away with it.

Why blame the people who are doing as they are told?

I am sure politicos love this sort of thing. They get off while the workmen get all the blame.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It is not two wars, it is two deployments. If it were wars you would be looking at scores of Divisions and not the amount you have today.

You will never have an army politicians can’t deploy. They won’t make that restriction so long as they have troops.

You can redefine the word war however you like, but the fact is that when you send your military into an active conflict, that is a war. The amount we pay everyday is the amount needed to pay for a war, by simply having troops on the ground in active duty with a purpose to kill an enemy, you are operating a war, even if the enemy is only a rabble of AK-47 thugs.

acin what experience do you have with the military?

and a 16 man platoon is the norm now. two squads and two fireteams. 8 men to a squad. do you understand the reprecussions of fighting with a 16 man squad when your not fighting scum with antiquated weapons using terror tactics. what those numbers can result in if you were to fight a real army even one like North Korea.

the military is already stretched thin to cut more manpower would be foolish and unwise. the US needs the biggest military in the world for many reasons. Your isolationist policy is bull and completely untenable.

and military installations on sovreign soil are not ethically wrong...... many countries welcome american bases. even in japan the minority want to remove the base.

cutting manpower doesnt save money. cutting r and d does. you want our soldiers to go out with inferior weapons and protection and fight with antiquated weapons systems? How about you save some money from something else in government like healthcare or social security. The military does more for jobs and the ecconomy than both of those.

Don't change the number of people in a platoon or a squad or whatever, just reduce the overall number of platoons and squads. Keep the groups in sizes that work optimally and reduce the amount of groups by X.

Cutting manpower does save money because whether you want to admit it or not, operating hundreds of manned military bases around the world and the logistics of keeping them fed and operational is expensive.

You are espousing Isolationism and asking that the US withdraw from the world stage.

Who fills the void and how does that offer the US security?

Who cares who fills the void? There is no threat. China is not a threat. How many times does that need to be said?



EDIT: Like I said before, the arguments keeps coming down to fear mongering over a non existent threat and an inability for the military to perform, which are both absolute bunk.

[Centurion1]

there are still viable threats to american security which operate on a conventional methodology.

and you have no idea we could all wake up tmmrw to a military coup in china by some radical militant. hypotheses are in the end hypotheses. because we said there would never be another major war after ww1 we were woefully unprepared for ww2. dont make the mistakes history has already made.

[a completely inoffensive name]

there are still viable threats to american security which operate on a conventional methodology.

and you have no idea we could all wake up tmmrw to a military coup in china by some radical militant. hypotheses are in the end hypotheses. because we said there would never be another major war after ww1 we were woefully unprepared for ww2. dont make the mistakes history has already made.

We prepare ourselves for the reality which presents itself today. Attempting to prepare for all possible outcomes in this world is foolish and overextending, which I think supports what Strike has been saying from the beginning.

EDIT: WW2 is a bad example, anyone who had an ear turned to the global politics could see the writing on the wall for 5 years before the war began. I have seen time magazines from the late 1930s that make you wonder out loud, how could they have not known. People did know, which is why many in the US worked to help the UK, those that didn't want to help the Brits, did so out of national interest (the isolationists).

[Centurion1]

We prepare ourselves for the reality which presents itself today. Attempting to prepare for all possible outcomes in this world is foolish and overextending, which I think supports what Strike has been saying from the beginning.

a reality in this day is that however much americans like to twiddle their thumbs and say nope couldnt happen to us conventional warfare with a modern opponent (hell even an opponent a generation behind us) is possible and could very well happen.

[a completely inoffensive name]

a reality in this day is that however much americans like to twiddle their thumbs and say nope couldnt happen to us conventional warfare with a modern opponent (hell even an opponent a generation behind us) is possible and could very well happen.

Who? Please don't say China.

[Centurion1]

china has no interest in us beyond economics or even beyod east asia but she does have designs on certain allies of ours which could create difficult situations if we didnt hasve the forces to back them up.

just because a nation isnt our equal doesnt mean they cannot inflict massive destruction on our forces. say north korea. they are a powder keg especially with Kim Jong Il getting older.

[a completely inoffensive name]

china has no interest in us beyond economics or even beyod east asia but she does have designs on certain allies of ours which could create difficult situations if we didnt hasve the forces to back them up.

just because a nation isnt our equal doesnt mean they cannot inflict massive destruction on our forces. say north korea. they are a powder keg especially with Kim Jong Il getting older.

There are no complications with China if we reduce forces. The blood of a nation is its economy. China is refusing to outright back North Korea publicly 100% because it is now so invested in the US even its long time ally is looking to be a liability. The only thing they are worried about from South Korea isn't capitalistic ideology but a hostile nation on its borders. But sooner or later it will see that Korea, when it unifies will have the same issues Germany had when it reunified with destitute east germany. So at least in the short term (25 years) a unified Korea will not be high on the threat list.

North Korea is nothing. If you think their puny arsenal can do anything to America, you are sadly mistaken. They can send 10 of their crappy missiles, 5 will crash on their own and 5 will be shot down by us before it crosses over Hawaii. North Korea is a danger to South Korea and a political liability to China. Nothing more.

[Major Robert Dump]

I truly think the big problems with costs started when we began outsourcing during Vietnam. It was originally intended to cut costs and foster ingenuity through competition, but anyone who has served in the last 20 years should knows that is a joke, and if you think its not a joke. I'm not saying all of the contractors and providers are a ripoff, but many of them are, and there is an immense amount of job security.

Google the Army Mentor scandal to see a recent example.

I have been to 3 branch/career specific schools, and at all 3 schools I had instructors who were teaching methods/platforms that were developed by a company that said instructor either currently or previously worked for. The logistics program the Army uses for deployments is absolute garbage, was 2 million cost overrun and had many bugs that we would have to "learn to deal with." The men who taught us how to use this program swore it was the best thing since sliced bread, and our somehow managed to give us the most non-intensive course on how to use the program, and turned daily 8 hour practical hands-on classes into 4 hour classes with 2.5 hour lunch breaks. Were they lazy, was there just nothing more to teach because the program wasn't complete, or both? I don't know, but they most certainly were not worth their $40 per hour salary, and they got paid the same no matter how long the classes were.

Another example: during training we field tested equipment that was pawned off on us by school staff. Those school staff got paid as consultants. We actually filed a complain because in one of the training exercises the equipment got destroyed (because it was crap) and the staff threatened to make us pay for it. We learned through the complain process that what they were doing was perfectly legal thanks to loopholes.

On an unrelated note, there are other ways to cut defense costs that would stifle tradition but be effective nontheless. For example, elimination of the Airborne program. We send thousands of soldiers through the program each year and then pay them more for being Airborne qulaified. They are also rewarded with more bling for making more jumps, which in turn ruins their knees. So we are paying soldiers more for destroying their bodies for being qualified at doing something they will likely never, ever, ever use. I can't help but chuckle every time I see a fat little admin or truck driver wearing their airborne wings, and I chuckle even harded when those with the wings rub it in the face of those without.

Now, Air Assualt, we need to keep that one, but airbornwe needs to go.

[Centurion1]

hey i need to go to airborne school first i want to be generation three

[Centurion1]

if you dont think conventional war with korea would be a bloodbath you are sadly mistaken. sure we would win and handidly but the damage down to our forces wouldnt be anything to scoff at.

[drone]

You can redefine the word war however you like, but the fact is that when you send your military into an active conflict, that is a war. The amount we pay everyday is the amount needed to pay for a war, by simply having troops on the ground in active duty with a purpose to kill an enemy, you are operating a war, even if the enemy is only a rabble of AK-47 thugs.

Iraq and Afghanistan are not wars. If they were, Congress would have said so. As it stands, they are deployments by the executive branch, funded by the Chinese. Part of this argument is that the financial costs of maintaining these deployments are somewhat invisible to the US population. We may be at "war", but our economy is not on a war footing, and the population does not feel the pinch (yet). If it did, the political pressure to either get out or resolve as quickly as possible would be much greater than it is now. Or maybe we wouldn't have gotten involved in the first place.

[Major Robert Dump]

hey i need to go to airborne school first i want to be generation three

Don't worry, I doubt the Army will ever scrap the program, because then we would have to come up with new cadences.

[Fisherking]

Cutting bases and cutting troops are two totally different things.

We went through massive base closures in the 1990s and what is left was what Congress wanted to keep.

You may think them unimportant but each one has a serious purpose.

We have discussed troop levels and if you can't see there are not enough to do the jobs we have without any surprises or contingencies, that is your choice.

All I can say is that it is one of those things no one is happy paying for but if you need it then it has already paid for its self.

Don't confuse your disagreements and disenchantment with operations with the value of the organizations.

You just won't see that it is a political issue you have.

The people who serve or have served didn't do it to get rich.

It is not an easy job even in peace.

They are looked down upon by people who have not the slightest idea of what they sacrifice and endure.

They take the blame and abuse brought on by politicians and the uninformed.

If you won't see its usefulness that is your choice.

It just strikes me as the same as those who see no usefulness in algebra or physics. They encounter it daily but don't see it...

We must simply agree to disagree.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Iraq and Afghanistan are not wars. If they were, Congress would have said so. As it stands, they are deployments by the executive branch, funded by the Chinese. Part of this argument is that the financial costs of maintaining these deployments are somewhat invisible to the US population. We may be at "war", but our economy is not on a war footing, and the population does not feel the pinch (yet). If it did, the political pressure to either get out or resolve as quickly as possible would be much greater than it is now. Or maybe we wouldn't have gotten involved in the first place.

Just because the costs have not hit the American citizen, does not make our army fighting on foreign soil fighting an "engagement" or what have you instead of a war. There are many ways to pay for a war, you can take the easy way out and borrow more or you can prep the economic for war status, to make the American public less resistive to conflicts, Congress chooses one of the other since the second half of the 20th century.

Let us be honest here about we got ourselves into here. We got attacked, and declared a War on Terror. We then invaded Afghanistan, and two years later, Iraq. What does everyone say when we talk about Iraq and Afghanistan. We call it the Iraq War. We call it the War in Afghanistan. No one says Operation Iraqi Freedom anymore. The public recognizes what these "conflicts" are. Prolonged wars against insurgents. Merely pointing out the fact that Congress worked around having to make it official does not revoke the reality of the situation.

EDIT: Are we to start calling the Vietnam War, what it really was under your definitions, the "Vietnam conflict/engagement"?

[Major Robert Dump]

I think the fact that we can wage "war" (however you choose to define it) without Americans personally feeling the financial pinch is one of the biggest problems in our society today. It lowers accountability amongst leaders, it enables people to toy with the lives and governments of others, and it encourages profiteering. Out of sight out of mind.

On the other hand, my country is filled with people who don't think it is okay to shoot a burglar crawling through your teenage daughters window at 2 AM, so maybe it's better the public has less say with military matters when the enemies come knocking.

[Centurion1]

Don't worry, I doubt the Army will ever scrap the program, because then we would have to come up with new cadences.

lol can you imagine if the term ranger was not used anymore...... american pt the world over would grind to a halt

[a completely inoffensive name]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ry_deployments

According to this, we have more personnel in Germany than we do in Iraq right now. Do we need 58,000ish troops in Germany to repel a Russian invasion?