http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/...ngs/index.html
This brings back memories of Republicans complaining about Clinton closing military bases.
Printable View
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/...ngs/index.html
This brings back memories of Republicans complaining about Clinton closing military bases.
My memory must be failing as I dont remember this. They complained he slashed the military too much but I dont remember REPUBLICANS as being the only ones complaining about and their not the only ones doing so this time either. If you have a constituancy that will be affected adversly by these closings your going to bitch about it. Its sad but it has to be done.Quote:
This brings back memories of Republicans complaining about Clinton closing military bases.
What's the problem? The US has thousands of mercenaries employed in Iraq, that will just increase in the future.
And at least it isn't like here, where they have decided to reduce armed forces significantly just as it's obvious we need more. Idiots.
Try again. I know you normally don't let things like facts get in the way of a chance to bash the Republicans, but it was George Bush I who did the first round of base closings, not Clinton.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
Point of order; history of Base Closure Actions & Legislation:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ility/brac.htm
Excerpt:
"...The Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process had its origins in the 1960s. Understanding that the Department of Defense (DOD) had to reduce its base structure that had been created during World War II and the Korean War, President John F. Kennedy directed Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara to develop and implement an extensive base realignment and closure program to adjust to the realities of the 1960s. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) subsequently established the criteria to govern the selection of bases without consulting Congress or the military. Under McNamara's guidance DOD closed sixty bases early in the 1960s without Congress or other government agencies being involved.
In view of the political and economic ramifications of the closures, Congress decided that it had to be involved in the process and passed legislation in 1965 that required DOD to report any base closure programs to it. However, President Lyndon B. Johnson vetoed the bill. This permitted DOD to continue realigning and closing bases without congressional oversight throughout the rest of the 1960s..."
In summary: pretty much bi-patisan.
They'res alot of opposition to some of the base closures. I know the one that's closing right in my area (Willow Grove) will put almost 10,000 people out of the area. Senators Arlen Spector, the Govenor Ed Rendell, amonst many other important local people are fighting for this base to stay open. They had Willow grove on the list to close in 1995 as well, but it survived. I have little doubt that it will survive again, it's very important to the local econemy, not to mention it's strategic value just north of one of the east coast's largest cities.
On a more personal note, if it does close, my girl will have to move. Along with around 50 other people from my school that I know. We heard the news the second CNN got it, in History. But I did some reading up on this. It has to pass through congress. With the ammount of opposition I've seen so far, I doubt the bill will pass as it is.
In other news, I think the pentagon is really stupid for closing military bases in the middle of a war, with war on the horizon with another major world power. I guess one of the requirments for working in the Pentagon is having an IQ no greater than 10.
It will save money in the long run. Believe me, there is way too much money going to way too many facilities that could easily be consolidated. Yes, it will hurt the local economies of these base closures, but we will save a significant amount in Defense spending and the resourses will be better put to use. For those communities effected, my heart goes out to them, but it is a necesity.
They're making ours bigger, well, consolodating from other bases here. ~:)
Uhm, the military isn't beind reduced by any means. It's a realignment. We're not just shutting down air bases and throwing all their F-16's into a trash compactor.
That is true, some bases must be closed. However, they picked the wrong bases to close in many cases. For example, Willow Grove. It's a major Naval Air station! Also, it looks like theyre going to stuff more planes into Fort Dix, that's stupid if you ask me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
I say, close some bases in Idaho and Nebraska, not on the coasts which are vulnerable to attack.
I think some perspective is called for here. Who exactly is going to launch a conventional attack on the US at the moment. Essentially I see the bases as barracks/training points rather than first lines of defence, because I can't see the US ever getting conventionally attacked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
I can. With the barbarian hordes of Europe and China at our boarders, and the British dominion of Canadia to the north, I forsee an attack within the next 5 years.
I think some bases definately need to be closed, despite the economic problems it will cause. If a town is propped up only by a military base, well the base needs to close so the people who moved to the area when the base was built will have to find another trade for the town or find another town. The bases cannot be left open forever if they are vital only to the local economy and drain federal funds.
The benefit of this would be building up other areas, or if other more vital bases are built up or founded then the economies of their areas would be boosted. We do not have much use for many bases designed for cold weather combat so they could be closed in exchange for desert combat bases and temperate bases could be closed or reduced in favor of the same.