At least they don't have to shout "bang"....yet

[Del Arroyo]

Airborne training is useful in today's military mostly as a rite of passage which separates the mediocre from the incompetent. This role should not be underestimated. It has also been very useful in some recent situations, though usually more for reasons of logistical efficiency than tactical effectiveness.

Oh, and one more thing, if Ethiopia has daggone paratroopers and you don't, obviously this means that you suck.

[Vuk]

There is no excuse for cutting back on the military like he did. The U.S. could not put up any type defence if attacked.
"Walk softly" That's ok, but you also must "Carry a big stick"!!
The U.S. has to be in a position where other nations will fear a war with them so much that they would never dream of attacking. THEN the U.S. can prosper. The U.S. has been steadily declining as a world power just as its military has.
When you played RTW, did you ever pay attention to those Latin proverbs? Those people weren't a bunch of dumb, inferior, cavemen, they knew what they were talking about. With the way society is structured, and our new technology, we could have world peace...but only if the world feared attacking us. No matter how peace loving you are, there are always oppurtunists seeking to enlarge their countries and make a name for themsleves. The U.S. will never be safe till IT makes ITSELF safe. Only by gaurding against attacks can we hope not to be attacked - not by leaving ourselves to the mercy of the world.
Say what ever leftist garble you like: It is the instruments of war that keep peace.

[Fisherking]

There is no excuse for cutting back on the military

Of course there is and we have heard thousands of them.

It doesn't mean that any of them had any logical basis to them. We went from 18 Army Divisions to around 8 (10 on paper but many lack a 3rd brigade) and reduced the National Guard (which was 65% of on paper combat strength) to around half of what it was (The Army Reserve now has no combat units). The Armored Force was reduced by more than half and the Marines were reorganised into smaller less self supporting organisations.

But why does that matter. The UK and the US are both safe and have no enemies on their borders. Everyone knows that democratic first world nations need no military. It is all a waste of money which should be given to the public and all of those needy third world countries to take them out of poverty (or transferred to Swiss Bank Accounts).

[Husar]

No matter how peace loving you are, there are always oppurtunists seeking to enlarge their countries and make a name for themsleves.

Yeah, quite a few of them in the US government right now.
I'd rather have the dutch play world police...

[Kralizec]

There is no excuse for cutting back on the military like he did. The U.S. could not put up any type defence if attacked.
"Walk softly" That's ok, but you also must "Carry a big stick"!!
The U.S. has to be in a position where other nations will fear a war with them so much that they would never dream of attacking. THEN the U.S. can prosper. The U.S. has been steadily declining as a world power just as its military has.

As Tribesman hinted, the main reason why Reagan increased military spending so much was to force the SU into matching them and thus bankrupting themselves. When Clinton took office, that reason didn't exist anymore.
In hindsight you can label it a wrong decision, you can even argue that even then it was a shortsighted thing to do- but a comparison with Blair's recent cuts doesn't hold a drop of water.

When you played RTW, did you ever pay attention to those Latin proverbs? Those people weren't a bunch of dumb, inferior, cavemen, they knew what they were talking about. With the way society is structured, and our new technology, we could have world peace...but only if the world feared attacking us. No matter how peace loving you are, there are always oppurtunists seeking to enlarge their countries and make a name for themsleves. The U.S. will never be safe till IT makes ITSELF safe. Only by gaurding against attacks can we hope not to be attacked - not by leaving ourselves to the mercy of the world.
Say what ever leftist garble you like: It is the instruments of war that keep peace.

I have, but my reading on the Romans and Latin text isn't limited to RTW, but thanks anyway for the condescension. World peace is a utopian dream, the only thing you can hope (and the only thing you're really interested in) is that all violence happens far away from the US.

And roughly paraphrasing a wise man: it's impossible to avoid war and prepare for it simultaniously.

[rory_20_uk]

Getting the army up to strength would be relatively easy: cut social security significantly, and increase armed forces benefits, basically making service comparatively more attractive.

Yes, more poor people will be in the Army. So? More poor people are plumbers. it is a valid career and one that is essential, far more so than giving money to people when there are government jobs that need to be filled. Historically this was the case, and some things are always going to be true.

Although now a completely fair comparison, the SAS did start out jumpting out of planes but since that was a disaster they switched to ground veichles. Similarly if the need to keep and hold rather than distroy runways is no longer present then this might be a skill that is not going to be required in the future.

[Ironside]

There is no excuse for cutting back on the military like he did. Iran could not put up any type defence if attacked.
"Walk softly" That's ok, but you also must "Carry a big stick"!!
Iran has to be in a position where other nations will fear a war with them so much that they would never dream of attacking. THEN Iran can prosper.
When you played RTW, did you ever pay attention to those Latin proverbs? Those people weren't a bunch of dumb, inferior, cavemen, they knew what they were talking about. With the way society is structured, and our new technology, we could have world peace...but only if the world feared attacking us. No matter how peace loving you are, there are always oppurtunists seeking to enlarge their countries and make a name for themsleves. Iran will never be safe till IT makes ITSELF safe. Only by gaurding against attacks can we hope not to be attacked - not by leaving ourselves to the mercy of the world.
Say what ever leftist garble you like: It is the instruments of war that keep peace.

To make a bit different perspective.

Now add some news in the style of "New American threats on Iran", "The American congress has reinitiated conscription" and you'll see the issues of starting to have a too large army.

There's 2 main reasons for very large armies. It's either to defend yourself from a very real threat or to invade. If people cannot see the first, then they will suspect the second reason, which will make them see that the first reason is a very good one...

[Tribesman]

Slightly OT Tribes but that was more or less what the US did, and it worked. Where's the beef?

The beef or more correctly worn out old mutton is that once again someone comes up with ..ooo look at clinton look at liberals see what they done , while completely ignoring the fact that "conservatives" do exactly the same .

[Vuk]

You are right, because there will NEVER be world peace, as much as we may desire it, we must be prepared to defend ourselves. And what do we care if a crappy little country like Iran gets intimidated? We have to make our intentions known to the world. We could do it by staying out of complete BS wars like Clinton's war in Bosnia! Republicans like McCain are the problem. Bush messed up, too, but he did a heck of a lot more good than bad. We don't need to have the largest military in the world...simply the best. We certainly do NOT have one large enough now.

[Husar]

And what do we care if a crappy little country like Iran gets intimidated?

China sez: "And what do we care if a crappy little country like the US gets intimidated?"

If what you say was official US policy, even I would turn to official anti-americanism and join Osama and his gang because I'd rather live without a big nation that thinks others are just crappy and should just be bombed to the stoneage if they don't do what the big one wants.
When we germans said similar things, you were surprisingly against us.
Also keep in mind that by trade, those small, completely unimportant countries help finance your huge army.

[Tribesman]

Ironside you clever bugger , you managed to quote Saddam in your different perspective of Vuks post

believe that you misunderstand me. I am not saying we need an immense army, but simply one that could defend us if we were attacked. A good-sized, well-equipped, welltrained, wellinformed fighting force and the ability to raise more and supply them on the spot.
We can't claim that today, stuff has to change.
(I get you point, but I'm not saying we need a massive invasion force, but just a respectable army like ol' Teddy had.)

There is so much to misunderstand when it makes no sense.
So who exactly is it that you think is going to attack you and what exactly is your army able to do about the likely suspects ?
Bugger all unless either you have a massive invasion force (that you say you don't need) or you are going to nuke an entire region in an attempt to kill a couple of nuts who were hiding in a shack there but have since moved out .

[Ironside]

You are right, because there will NEVER be world peace, as much as we may desire it, we must be prepared to defend ourselves. And what do we care if a crappy little country like Iran gets intimidated? We have to make our intentions known to the world.

Is your intension that the "will of the US" is to do this?

The U.S. has to be in a position where other nations will fear a war with them so much that they would never dream of attacking. THEN the U.S. can prosper. The U.S. has been steadily declining as a world power just as its military has.

Because you're already there...

Bush messed up, too, but he did a heck of a lot more good than bad. We don't need to have the largest military in the world...simply the best. We certainly do NOT have one large enough now.

What you do lack is boots on the ground for a (relativly) civil occupation in unruly territory, and way more where it matters, politicians that doesn't have "guts" to deploy the amount required (and that's been a severe issue since the invasion).
To get much more troops you would require a paradigm shift in the requitment of troops in the US.
You could hold Iraq by a little more uncivil occupation style, but that would make Bush's speech-writers focusing a bit on freeing the Iraqi people from thier worldly possessions and liberating them from the fragile crust known as mortality.
It would also make my first statement false...

[Lord Winter]

There is no excuse for cutting back on the military like he did. The U.S. could not put up any type defence if attacked.
"Walk softly" That's ok, but you also must "Carry a big stick"!!
The U.S. has to be in a position where other nations will fear a war with them so much that they would never dream of attacking. THEN the U.S. can prosper. The U.S. has been steadily declining as a world power just as its military has.
When you played RTW, did you ever pay attention to those Latin proverbs? Those people weren't a bunch of dumb, inferior, cavemen, they knew what they were talking about. With the way society is structured, and our new technology, we could have world peace...but only if the world feared attacking us. No matter how peace loving you are, there are always oppurtunists seeking to enlarge their countries and make a name for themsleves. The U.S. will never be safe till IT makes ITSELF safe. Only by gaurding against attacks can we hope not to be attacked - not by leaving ourselves to the mercy of the world.
Say what ever leftist garble you like: It is the instruments of war that keep peace.

I agree with you partially but not completely. There have been multiple nations that have bankrupted themselves on constant wars and large well trained standard armies. The France of Louis XIV is one example. Even today there are people in North Korea who are starving and living in poverty because a ridiculously high percentage of there budget goes into keeping one the worlds largest army. Standing army's, if anything are extremely costly. Can units not be raised relatively quickly to make up for any gaps in manpower? Paying for a two to three million strong standing army that chews up billions of dollars a year in peace time is ridiculous. There are better things that can be spent on. I am not avocation that we do away with a standing army, I'm just saying that it should not be at the same strength and size in peace time as it is in war time.
However it is a fine line. If you underfund the army in peace time then in a time of war the U.S. (or any other country for that matter) could be overran before there is time to mobilize it's forces. There is no resason what so ever to cut funding on new technolegy proper training of the army we have, and replacing obselete equitment.

[Vuk]

I agree with you partially but not completely. There have been multiple nations that have bankrupted themselves on constant wars and large well trained standard armies. The France of Louis XIV is one example. Even today there are people in North Korea who are starving and living in poverty because a ridiculously high percentage of there budget goes into keeping one the worlds largest army. Standing army's, if anything are extremely costly. Can units not be raised relatively quickly to make up for any gaps in manpower? Paying for a two to three million strong standing army that chews up billions of dollars a year in peace time is ridiculous. There are better things that can be spent on. I am not avocation that we do away with a standing army, I'm just saying that it should not be at the same strength and size in peace time as it is in war time.
However it is a fine line. If you underfund the army in peace time then in a time of war the U.S. (or any other country for that matter) could be overran before there is time to mobilize it's forces. There is no resason what so ever to cut funding on new technolegy proper training of the army we have, and replacing obselete equitment.

I believe that you misunderstand me. I am not saying we need an immense army, but simply one that could defend us if we were attacked. A good-sized, well-equipped, welltrained, wellinformed fighting force and the ability to raise more and supply them on the spot.
We can't claim that today, stuff has to change.
(I get you point, but I'm not saying we need a massive invasion force, but just a respectable army like ol' Teddy had.)

[BDC]

(I get you point, but I'm not saying we need a massive invasion force, but just a respectable army like ol' Teddy had.)

Why? Even a small modern army can call in enough firepower to make any army from any point in the past ashamed. Anyone invading America would be obliterated.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I believe that you misunderstand me. I am not saying we need an immense army, but simply one that could defend us if we were attacked. A good-sized, well-equipped, welltrained, wellinformed fighting force and the ability to raise more and supply them on the spot.
We can't claim that today, stuff has to change.
(I get you point, but I'm not saying we need a massive invasion force, but just a respectable army like ol' Teddy had.)

Well currently your army is poorly trained, badly organised and overweight. America is THE example that throwing money at the military is not the answer.

More importantly, something you all fail to realise is that it takes a year to train a soldier to an acceptable standard, six months at a push, maybe less for light infantry.

Therefore a defensive army needs to be able to hold out without significant re-enforcements for a year or more.

That's not possible for any current military.