PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues KCJ, your opinion, please


Bowser
10-31-2008, 10:30 AM
You are dangerously naive. Call me anything you want, but my sacred duty is to defend our country and its interests. The Generals I am working for do not share you happy talk scenario.

I am interested to see if you have ever seen this, and what your take on it is....

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/

Be advised that you are not allowed to use the words "liberal" or "agenda" in your response, for this is not a partisan shot.

OnTheWarpath58
10-31-2008, 10:44 AM
Captain Cut-and-Paste is busy looking for his next opinion.

Sully
10-31-2008, 10:45 AM
I'd be willing to bet money he will not post in this thread.

jidar
10-31-2008, 11:05 AM
The military budget has gone beyond ridiculous. over 600b /year not including special appropriations like the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is why when I heard Obama saying military spending is going to be cut I don't mind at all.

patteeu
10-31-2008, 11:19 AM
The military budget has gone beyond ridiculous. over 600b /year not including special appropriations like the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is why when I heard Obama saying military spending is going to be cut I don't mind at all.

Military spending as a fraction of the overall budget is low compared to it's historical levels. It's also pretty low as a fraction of our national GDP. If government spending is your beef, your problem ought to be, first and foremost, with the other parts of the budget. It makes no sense at all to me that people want to take a huge chunk out of our military budget at the same time the world is becoming more, not less, dangerous.

Bowser
10-31-2008, 12:27 PM
Military spending as a fraction of the overall budget is low compared to it's historical levels. It's also pretty low as a fraction of our national GDP. If government spending is your beef, your problem ought to be, first and foremost, with the other parts of the budget. It makes no sense at all to me that people want to take a huge chunk out of our military budget at the same time the world is becoming more, not less, dangerous.

Any suggestions?

patteeu
10-31-2008, 12:43 PM
Any suggestions?

For what?

Bowser
10-31-2008, 12:44 PM
For what?

What "other parts of the budget", dummah.

patteeu
10-31-2008, 01:00 PM
What "other parts of the budget", dummah.

Don't be cryptic. What are you looking for here, ideas for cutting the budget? If so, yeah, cut the hell out of the rest of the discretionary budget and the entitlements. And when you can't find specific programs to cut, restrain the growth for the rest of the spending.

If you want a more specific idea, then think about your favorite non-military program. Now cut it.

Guru
10-31-2008, 01:04 PM
Captain Cut-and-Paste is busy looking for his next opinion. There are others that give him a run for his money as well.;)

Jenson71
10-31-2008, 01:25 PM
Don't be cryptic. What are you looking for here, ideas for cutting the budget? If so, yeah, cut the hell out of the rest of the discretionary budget and the entitlements. And when you can't find specific programs to cut, restrain the growth for the rest of the spending.

If you want a more specific idea, then think about your favorite non-military program. Now cut it.

I've got one! How about subsidies to rich corporations, oil moguls, and life sucking agribusinesses?

patteeu
10-31-2008, 01:36 PM
I've got one! How about subsidies to rich corporations, oil moguls, and life sucking agribusinesses?

Those are included in my plan.

whoman69
10-31-2008, 02:51 PM
the national helium reserve, thought to be a strategic reserve for our ever vigilent blimp defense.

2bikemike
10-31-2008, 08:06 PM
The military budget has gone beyond ridiculous. over 600b /year not including special appropriations like the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is why when I heard Obama saying military spending is going to be cut I don't mind at all.

If you want to keep the minimum manning approach to the military you need better and more sophisticated weaponry than those that wish you harm. The problem with military spending is we cut it when we think everything is peachy and then we have to build up from the cuts we made previously when shit gets dicey.

IMHO the roll of Govt is first and foremost defense of the nation.

KCJohnny
11-01-2008, 01:51 AM
Discretionary spending, the portion of the budget subject to annual review or budget debate, has risen 152 percent since 1965. Mandatory spending, consisting mostly of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which run on autopilot, has risen 759 percent since 1965.


Discretionary spending includes the defense budget. These are the facts (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S8-Mandatory-Spending-Has-Increased.html) my friends.

The Global War on Terrorism claims just below 4% of the GDP. Compare to WW II when defense spending cost 38% of the GDP. Gross Domestic Product = all the money generated by the American economy.
At 4 percent of GDP (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S7-Despite-War-Costs-Defense.html), defense spending is 1.5 percentage points of GDP below the 45-year historical average and well below Cold War and Vietnam War levels.

In WW II, we were not attacked in the continental United States. We were attacked by military at a military installation (Pearl Harbor) on 7 DEC 1941. On September 11, 2001 we were attacked in the continental US at no less than 3 locations by foreign terrorists who had declared war on the US.

Right now we have 2 million uniformed servicemembers defending 310 million citizens. My question is, why aren't more military age men doing their share?

The video trailer you linked to seems to be making the case that in 2008 we are in danger of allowing profiteering by private organizations in the name of national defense. That argument is bereft of any real proof seeing the size of our force (mandated by the US Congress) is so small that we are very dependent on three things to keep our strategic defense committments: technology, fuel, and hired civilian manpower. The real argument against your trailer's thesis is this: Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines are reenlisting at record rates even though most know for a fact that multiple combat deployments lay ahead.

The world is still a dangerous place. Reducing our military expenditures can only place us at increased risk.

I would remind our readers that regime change in Iraq was the official policy of the US government since President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act (http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf) into law exactly 10 years ago to the day.

I applaud all conscienteous efforts to monitor, audit, and hold accountable any and all defense contracting agreements. Every appearance of collusion must be investigated and sound business principles in accordance with current law applied.

While government run organizations are never efficient, which includes the military, some must be funded every year no matter what. Defense spending is provided for in the Constitution. 95% of Mandatory spending has been grandfathered into law since the New Deal of FDR in the 1930s. Simply stated, the Constitution requires funding the Department of Defense, but not the sundry entitlements we have grown to take for granted.

Also, your video trailer cherry picks President Eisenhower's quotes out of context. It is precisely the virility of our 'military industrial complex' that brought the USSR to its knees. I am in South Korea right now. The S. Korean government spent $44 billion on defense in 2007 compared to $2 Billion by North Korea. The $44 Billion represents less than 5% of the S. Korean GDP, and they have 15,000 artillery pieces aimed at them from just a few kilometers away. The $2 billion spent by Kim Jong Il's communist regime represents a staggering 25% of its GDP.

So my question is, do you prefer a weaponized economy or a conscripted (draft) military?

Logical
11-01-2008, 02:04 AM
Discretionary spending includes the defense budget. These are the facts (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S8-Mandatory-Spending-Has-Increased.html) my friends.

The Global War on Terrorism claims just below 4% of the GDP. Compare to WW II when it defense spending cost 38% of the GDP. Gross Domestic Product = all the money generated by the American economy.
At 4 percent of GDP (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S7-Despite-War-Costs-Defense.html), defense spending is 1.5 percentage points of GDP below the 45-year historical average and well below Cold War and Vietnam War levels.
....JFC you are so delusional you are comparing the current defense budget with the one during WWII. Are you completely nuts.

patteeu
11-01-2008, 08:39 AM
JFC you are so delusional you are comparing the current defense budget with the one during WWII. Are you completely nuts.

What's delusional about it?

Great post KC Johnny.

tiptap
11-01-2008, 08:48 AM
Does the Heritage chart include other defense spending for intelligence and weapons developement now done under the Dept of Energy. It doesn't include the expenditure for the Wars. Smarter use of funds and research means the draconian choices set up by KCj is a false dichotomy.

I do not find your arguments as valid. That is my judgment,.

KCJohnny
11-01-2008, 09:04 AM
Does the Heritage chart include other defense spending for intelligence and weapons developement now done under the Dept of Energy. It doesn't include the expenditure for the Wars. Smarter use of funds and research means the draconian choices set up by KCj is a false dichotomy.

I do not find your arguments as valid. That is my judgment,.

Thank you. All concerned voters, please refer to post #15.

BigChiefFan
11-01-2008, 09:08 AM
Never mind the fact that Obama said he would make sure the military was ready for the new millenium and wants to do everything in his power to keep them SAFE.

KCJohnny
11-01-2008, 09:15 AM
Never mind the fact that Obama said he would make sure the military was ready for the new millenium and wants to do everything in his power to keep them SAFE.

Really? Obama himself disagrees (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=195569) with your post.

banyon
11-01-2008, 09:58 AM
Really? Obama himself disagrees (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=195569) with your post.

Hey, that's the same thread where I asked you to point out where Obama said what you accused him of saying and you didn't respond. I remember that! Good times.


Do you not hear what he proposes? Unilateral scaling back of national defense capabilities in HOPE that rogue nations and enemies will follow suit? You are lots of fun on ChiefsPlanet but out to lunch on foreign policy and defense.

There is no such statement in the video at all. Now, I'm not sure you watched what you posted.

Hello? I spent 8 years in the Army under President Clinton. In the interest of not embarassing either one of us, I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt here. Thanks for bringing up President Clinton, who signed the Iraqi Liberation Act into law 10 years ago today!

Maybe we should just give you the benefit of the doubt and "trust you" that it's on the video again, even if it's not?

KCJohnny
11-01-2008, 09:59 AM
Hey, that's the same thread where I asked you to point out where Obama said what you accused him of saying and you didn't respond. I remember that! Good times.
Maybe we should just give you the benefit of the doubt and "trust you" that it's on the video again, even if it's not?

Hey man, the video is there for all to see in Obama's own words, draw your own conclusions.

And thanks for putting this post at the top! ;-)

banyon
11-01-2008, 10:14 AM
Hey man, the video is there for all to see in Obama's own words, draw your own conclusions.

And thanks for putting this post at the top! ;-)

I did draw my own conclusions, thanks. The two main ones I drew were 1) KCJohnny was dramatically overreacting and hypervetilating as usual and 2) Obama wants to eliminate some of the waste in the defense budget just like I thought he did.

KCJohnny
11-01-2008, 10:18 AM
I did draw my own conclusions, thanks. The two main ones I drew were 1) KCJohnny was dramatically overreacting and hypervetilating as usual and 2) Obama wants to eliminate some of the waste in the defense budget just like I thought he did.

Thank God most Americans trust national defense to the GOP and not your weak kneed approach to national defense.

In the words of Winston Churchill, "never have so many owed so much to so few"...

Sometimes I wish we would be in the same boat as the British in 1943 to wake you pansies up....

Adept Havelock
11-01-2008, 10:23 AM
Sometimes I wish we would be in the same boat as the British in 1943 to wake you pansies up....

Why would having recently whipped the Afrika Korps "wake the pansies up"? LMAO

Or perhaps you were thinking of Monty being beaten to Messina?

I guess that was a rough time for the Brits in '43. :shrug:

BigChiefFan
11-01-2008, 10:25 AM
Thank God most Americans trust national defense to the GOP and not your weak kneed approach to national defense.

In the words of Winston Churchill, "never have so many owed so much to so few"...

Sometimes I wish we would be in the same boat as the British in 1943 to wake you pansies up....
9-11 happened on a REPUBLICAN'S WATCH. Try again.

banyon
11-01-2008, 10:29 AM
Thank God most Americans trust national defense to the GOP and not your weak kneed approach to national defense.

In the words of Winston Churchill, "never have so many owed so much to so few"...

Sometimes I wish we would be in the same boat as the British in 1943 to wake you pansies up....

Sometimes I wish it were 1943 and you would be one of the dullards trying to call Harry Truman a coward for his elimination of waste in military spending. I remember how Truman caused us to lose that war...oh wait.

BigChiefFan
11-01-2008, 10:32 AM
Sometimes I wish it were 1943 and you would be one of the dullards trying to call Harry Truman a coward for his elimination of waste in military spending. I remember how Truman caused us to lose that war...oh wait.
Slam meet dunk.

patteeu
11-01-2008, 11:05 AM
I did draw my own conclusions, thanks. The two main ones I drew were 1) KCJohnny was dramatically overreacting and hypervetilating as usual and 2) Obama wants to eliminate some of the waste in the defense budget just like I thought he did.

As is his m.o., Obama leaves some ambiguity in his statement. I think it's a stretch to resolve that ambiguity into a simple call for eliminating waste in the defense budget. It's a stretch in the other direction to say that he's advocating complete unilateral disarmament. But based on the company he's always kept, the constituencies that represent his base, and the history of the democrat party during my adult lifetime, I side with KCJohnny on this. Obama wants to degrade our military capability in order to fund his social programs and in order to make us less of a threat to the rest of the world, IMO.

Bowser
11-01-2008, 11:12 AM
As is his m.o., Obama leaves some ambiguity in his statement. I think it's a stretch to resolve that ambiguity into a simple call for eliminating waste in the defense budget. It's a stretch in the other direction to say that he's advocating complete unilateral disarmament. But based on the company he's always kept, the constituencies that represent his base, and the history of the democrat party during my adult lifetime, I side with KCJohnny on this. Obama wants to degrade our military capability in order to fund his social programs and in order to make us less of a threat to the rest of the world, IMO.

Good take, but I disagree. In the opinion of an ordinary guy, we could shave a goodly chunk of wasteful spending from the military and not lose a step in terms of strength. There are exactly two countries in the world that would even consider challenging us, and I doubt that will ever happen.

BigChiefFan
11-01-2008, 11:13 AM
As is his m.o., Obama leaves some ambiguity in his statement. I think it's a stretch to resolve that ambiguity into a simple call for eliminating waste in the defense budget. It's a stretch in the other direction to say that he's advocating complete unilateral disarmament. But based on the company he's always kept, the constituencies that represent his base, and the history of the democrat party during my adult lifetime, I side with KCJohnny on this. Obama wants to degrade our military capability in order to fund his social programs and in order to make us less of a threat to the rest of the world, IMO. Why on Earth would he do that? That's just fear and there is nothing that suggests that position is accurate. In fact, he's said he wanted to MODERNIZE the military.

patteeu
11-01-2008, 11:18 AM
Why on Earth would he do that? That's just fear and there is nothing that suggests that position is accurate. In fact, he's said he wanted to MODERNIZE the military.

There are a lot of people in this country who don't think we need nearly as much military as we have. There are a lot of people who underestimate how dangerous the world is. There are a lot of people who think that we just need to be a little more powerful than the next guy in line to adequately protect ourselves. Obama seems to be one of them. I'm in disagreement with those people.

I'm all for cutting waste, but I think we need a bigger military not a smaller one. I do think that we ought to revisit our assumptions about how to allocate resources between manpower/training and equipment/technology but we need to make this evaluation on the basis of national security not as a way to find funds for the next big liberal social program.

banyon
11-01-2008, 11:19 AM
There are a lot of people in this country who don't think we need nearly as much military as we have. There are a lot of people who underestimate how dangerous the world is. There are a lot of people who think that we just need to be a little more powerful than the next guy in line to adequately protect ourselves. Obama seems to be one of them. I'm in disagreement with those people.

I'm fine with the military at large, it's the lucrative contracting work that I'm more focused on.

Smed1065
11-01-2008, 11:21 AM
JFC you are so delusional you are comparing the current defense budget with the one during WWII. Are you completely nuts.

We have 2 current "wars"!

Bowser
11-01-2008, 11:25 AM
We have 2 current "wars"!

War on drugs, and the war on illegal aliens?

Bowser
11-01-2008, 11:26 AM
Sometimes I wish we would be in the same boat as the British in 1943 to wake you pansies up....

Possibly your dumbest comment yet. Possibly.

Smed1065
11-01-2008, 11:38 AM
War on drugs, and the war on illegal aliens?

That's just on our soil. :eek:

KCJohnny
11-02-2008, 02:45 AM
9-11 happened on a REPUBLICAN'S WATCH. Try again.

That operation was planned years in advance.

patteeu
11-02-2008, 07:13 AM
Why on Earth would he do that? That's just fear and there is nothing that suggests that position is accurate. In fact, he's said he wanted to MODERNIZE the military.

The "why" was included in my post. His own statements suggest that it's accurate, IMO.

OnTheWarpath58
11-02-2008, 07:28 AM
That operation was planned years in advance.

What difference does that make?

When the briefing came across Bush's desk in August (IIRC) he ignored it.

They could have been planning it for 10 years, it doesn't change the fact that the current administration had advance warning and did nothing to stop it.

KCJohnny
11-02-2008, 07:29 AM
What difference does that make?

When the briefing came across Bush's desk in August (IIRC) he ignored it.

They could have been planning it for 10 years, it doesn't change the fact that the current administration had advance warning and did nothing to stop it.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

KCJohnny
11-02-2008, 07:31 AM
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Discretionary spending, the portion of the budget subject to annual review or budget debate, has risen 152 percent since 1965. Mandatory spending, consisting mostly of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which run on autopilot, has risen 759 percent since 1965. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Discretionary spending includes the defense budget. These are the facts (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S8-Mandatory-Spending-Has-Increased.html) my friends.

The Global War on Terrorism claims just below 4% of the GDP. Compare to WW II when defense spending cost 38% of the GDP. Gross Domestic Product = all the money generated by the American economy.
At 4 percent of GDP (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S7-Despite-War-Costs-Defense.html), defense spending is 1.5 percentage points of GDP below the 45-year historical average and well below Cold War and Vietnam War levels.

In WW II, we were not attacked in the continental United States. We were attacked by military at a military installation (Pearl Harbor) on 7 DEC 1941. On September 11, 2001 we were attacked in the continental US at no less than 3 locations by foreign terrorists who had declared war on the US.

Right now we have 2 million uniformed servicemembers defending 310 million citizens. My question is, why aren't more military age men doing their share?

The video trailer you linked to seems to be making the case that in 2008 we are in danger of allowing profiteering by private organizations in the name of national defense. That argument is bereft of any real proof seeing the size of our force (mandated by the US Congress) is so small that we are very dependent on three things to keep our strategic defense committments: technology, fuel, and hired civilian manpower. The real argument against your trailer's thesis is this: Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines are reenlisting at record rates even though most know for a fact that multiple combat deployments lay ahead.

The world is still a dangerous place. Reducing our military expenditures can only place us at increased risk.

I would remind our readers that regime change in Iraq was the official policy of the US government since President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act (http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf) into law exactly 10 years ago to the day.

I applaud all conscienteous efforts to monitor, audit, and hold accountable any and all defense contracting agreements. Every appearance of collusion must be investigated and sound business principles in accordance with current law applied.

While government run organizations are never efficient, which includes the military, some must be funded every year no matter what. Defense spending is provided for in the Constitution. 95% of Mandatory spending has been grandfathered into law since the New Deal of FDR in the 1930s. Simply stated, the Constitution requires funding the Department of Defense, but not the sundry entitlements we have grown to take for granted.

Also, your video trailer cherry picks President Eisenhower's quotes out of context. It is precisely the virility of our 'military industrial complex' that brought the USSR to its knees. I am in South Korea right now. The S. Korean government spent $44 billion on defense in 2007 compared to $2 Billion by North Korea. The $44 Billion represents less than 5% of the S. Korean GDP, and they have 15,000 artillery pieces aimed at them from just a few kilometers away. The $2 billion spent by Kim Jong Il's communist regime represents a staggering 25% of its GDP.

So my question is, do you prefer a weaponized economy or a conscripted (draft) military?
<!-- / message --><!-- edit note --><HR style="COLOR: #cccccc" SIZE=1>

patteeu
11-02-2008, 07:34 AM
What difference does that make?

When the briefing came across Bush's desk in August (IIRC) he ignored it.

They could have been planning it for 10 years, it doesn't change the fact that the current administration had advance warning and did nothing to stop it.

:LOL: @ "the briefing" and "advanced warning"

Come on, man. Go ahead and be critical of Bush for his policies or be hopeful about Obama if you want, but don't be ridiculous.

OnTheWarpath58
11-02-2008, 07:39 AM
You have no idea what you are talking about.

Really, John?

Was there, or was there not, a PDB issued on August 6th, 2001 titled Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.?

OnTheWarpath58
11-02-2008, 07:42 AM
:LOL: @ "the briefing" and "advanced warning"

Come on, man. Go ahead and be critical of Bush for his policies or be hopeful about Obama if you want, but don't be ridiculous.

Hey, don't blame me. John made it an issue, not me. (But you're right. I just wanted to see how he'd respond)

LMAO

The point was raised that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. (less than 2 years in)

John is trying to make that because the attacks had been planned weel in advance, that it doesn't matter?

Please.

KCJohnny
11-02-2008, 07:43 AM
Really, John?

Was there, or was there not, a PDB issued on August 6th, 2001 titled Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.?

And how many times had AQ attacked the US and issued declarations of war under Clinton?

My question for you is, how many times has the US been successfully attacked since 9/11?






Yeah. That's what I thought. Here comes the Obama/Odinga/Ayers/Khalidi administration. Hold on.

OnTheWarpath58
11-02-2008, 07:48 AM
And how many times had AQ attacked the US and issued declarations of war under Clinton?

My question for you is, how many times has the US been successfully attacked since 9/11?






Yeah. That's what I thought. Here comes the Obama/Odinga/Ayers/Khalidi administration. Hold on.

FFS, John.

Don't act like these acts of terrorism happen every other week and your boy Bush is to be commended for playing Mall Cop for the past 7 years.

When was the last time we had been attacked on US soil prior to 9/11?

Does Clinton get credit for "defending" the US from another attack for the 7+ years he was in office after the 1993 WTC bombings?

KCJohnny
11-02-2008, 07:59 AM
FFS, John.

Don't act like these acts of terrorism happen every other week and your boy Bush is to be commended for playing Mall Cop for the past 7 years.



Despicable ignoring of the valiant effort of the Bush administration as the dems tried to tie his hands at every turn. You people act as if your safety is a given. Well its not.

Welcome to the terrorist-friendly Obama administration. Buy insurance.

OnTheWarpath58
11-02-2008, 08:06 AM
Despicable ignoring of the valiant effort of the Bush administration as the dems tried to tie his hands at every turn. You people act as if your safety is a given. Well its not.

Welcome to the terrorist-friendly Obama administration. Buy insurance.

Valiant effort? ROFL

How many years was the House and Senate controlled by Republicans during the Bush Administration?


Oh, and why did you not quote my ENTIRE post?

FFS, John.

Don't act like these acts of terrorism happen every other week and your boy Bush is to be commended for playing Mall Cop for the past 7 years.

When was the last time we had been attacked on US soil prior to 9/11?

Does Clinton get credit for "defending" the US from another attack for the 7+ years he was in office after the 1993 WTC bombings?