Draw Down

[Louis VI the Fat]

It is not Americas job to ensure democracy around the world nor is it Americas job to crave out little sections of countries and hace a "prescence" Both things fly in the face of all that is holy

Where will you counter China? At the Rockies? At the Mississippi?

Or would you rather build a viable set of alliances with Korea, Japan, and others in the region? This maintains democracy, stabilises the region, and empowers Americas allies to defend themselves.


Yes, Jefferson's much maligned entangling alliances. But unlike in Jefferson's time, people nowadays can fly planes to sneak attack American harbors and skyscrapers.

[Strike For The South]

Where will you counter China? At the Rockies? At the Mississippi?

Or would you rather build a viable set of alliances with Korea, Japan, and others in the region? This maintains democracy, stabilises the region, and empowers Americas allies to defend themselves.


Yes, Jefferson's much maligned entangling alliances. But unlike time, people nowadays can fly planes to bomb American harbors and skyscrapers.

We can maintain alliances without a "prescence". Like you say planes can now transport things, sometimes even men and material.

These fantasies of US cities being bombed and a Chinese occupation are tin foil hat at best

I realize you are merely playing devils adovacate but it grows tiresome, the only real reason the military budget hasn't been cut is because a few powerful people make an absolute killing.

[Fisherking]

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?

[Strike For The South]

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?

yes no

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

[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

[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]

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.

[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

[PlusPlayer1]

nvm

[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.

[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.

[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.

[drone]

Sorry for the delay, I got caught in a 4 hour, 6 mile commute through snow and abandoned vehicles to get to a house without power last night.

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.

And therein lies the problem.

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.

We did not declare a war on terror, Bush 43 told Congress we were starting one. Congress loves this fact, because it allows people to think we are in a war, without them being responsible for it. Full-blown CYA. Afghanistan and Iraq started out as "operations", for political reasons, given the OK by men and women too scared of the political consequences to defend their constitutional powers. I know it's a war, you know it's a war, and the soldiers know full well it's a war. But the government doesn't think it's a war, because it's not. Hence the shenanigans.

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

I was always fond of "police action". We didn't declare war for that one, and look how well it turned out. After a couple more of these involvements, maybe we will realize why Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 is not in Article 2.