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

[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.

[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.

[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...

[Vuk]

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

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 .

Anyone who could attack us. If China and its allies attacked the U.S., how long do you think it would last? Not very...esp. with all the nukes Clinton gave them.

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.

Not quite, we have an army of men that can't even read a compass. Our military is the most pathetic thing in the world. We have so few men and so few defensive missiles that we could be crippled in ONE missile attack.

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.

I never said we shouldn't care about them or that we should attack them, but that we should not base or domestic or military policy on their opinions of us. We should do everything we REASONABLY can without endangering ourselves or hurting foriegn diplomacy, and if they don't like it: tough. What would you do if they said they were intimidated by our airport security? Get rid of it? We can have good relations with another country, but we don't need to be ruled by them.
Pardon me, but Germany is the farthest thing from a model country. In fact it is just about the most messed up country in the world.

We fought the Germans because of a screwed up web of diplomacy. America wanted war with Germany and so forced Japan into a war, and then instead of demoliting the Japenese who did horrible things to us, concentrated everything on Germany. Later nuking innocent civilians in an attempt to show Russia our power. The US's diplomacy has sucked quite a bit when you think of it.

[Samurai Waki]

The US doesn't need a massive Army. We need an Army that is quick and flexible, well able to approach hot spots throughout the world with enough force to knock out a small country, but not one big enough to take on a major regional power. Because if war ever comes between the US and China for example, its going to be a war fought with Nuclear Weapons not soldiers.

[Pannonian]

Not quite, we have an army of men that can't even read a compass. Our military is the most pathetic thing in the world. We have so few men and so few defensive missiles that we could be crippled in ONE missile attack.

You're exaggerating a tad. Remember the US outspends something like the next 20 biggest spenders in the world combined in Defence. If that doesn't give you a workable military, something has gone ridiculously wrong in the planning. If we had those kind of resources, there would have been twice as many pink bits on the map.

Perhaps, instead of demanding ever more cash for the military, you should start looking at what you want your military to do, and plan it accordingly.

[BDC]

Not quite, we have an army of men that can't even read a compass. Our military is the most pathetic thing in the world. We have so few men and so few defensive missiles that we could be crippled in ONE missile attack.

But they would still be obliterated afterwards, so no one is going to do it.

[Tribesman]

Anyone who could attack us. If China and its allies attacked the U.S., how long do you think it would last? Not very...esp. with all the nukes Clinton gave them.

With all the Nukes Clinton gave them
Do you mean the exchange of data as part of a test ban treaty

[Scurvy]

Perhaps, instead of demanding ever more cash for the military, you should start looking at what you want your military to do, and plan it accordingly.

or just have no military at all, and spend the money on something useful (-obviously not possible)

[Del Arroyo]

OT: Is there a member ignore option on this site? Because I might just use it on Tribesman.

EDIT: No threats or personal attacks please. BG

[PanzerJaeger]

OT: Is there a member ignore option on this site? Because I might just use it on Tribesman.

Go to the User Control Panel, then Buddy/Ignore lists on the left hand side menu.

I jumped on a couple of lists just last week.

[Tribesman]

EDIT: Please don't respond to attacks by fanning the flames. Everyone calm down. BG

[Ser Clegane]

Pardon me, but Germany is the farthest thing from a model country. In fact it is just about the most messed up country in the world.

Oh ... well ...

[BigTex]

The US doesn't need a massive Army. We need an Army that is quick and flexible, well able to approach hot spots throughout the world with enough force to knock out a small country, but not one big enough to take on a major regional power. Because if war ever comes between the US and China for example, its going to be a war fought with Nuclear Weapons not soldiers.

While I'll agree the US needs a more flexible army. Something I think we're working towards. I also don't see were the US military is so handicapped. Last I checked they had full first strike capability over China.

But a war with China will not involve nuclear weapons. It would if all goes well involve a first strike to China, wipping out communications and most of their airforce. It would then move to Korea and to India. A war with China would be a long one, and to win would involve alot of deforestation aerosols used by the US. War with China would be won by starving the worlds largest country to peace.

[Husar]

OT: Is there a member ignore option on this site? Because I might just use it on Tribesman.

Oh, I love you all, too.
Guess what, I have noone on that list and tribes is one of the funnier members of the backroom. I don't even have PJ on my ignore list, IMO ignore lists are for people who take some issues way too serious and should visit the Frontroom more often.
(Why do I think someone is going to hate me for promoting peace now? )

[rory_20_uk]

Oh, I love you all, too.
Guess what, I have noone on that list and tribes is one of the funnier members of the backroom. I don't even have PJ on my ignore list, IMO ignore lists are for people who take some issues way too serious and should visit the Frontroom more often.
(Why do I think someone is going to hate me for promoting peace now? )

So, join a discussion group, then ignore people...

If persons don't want to hear conflicting views I am sure that there are more... partisan sites that would love to have some more... dedicated supporters.

[BDC]

or just have no military at all, and spend the money on something useful (-obviously not possible)

Bribes?