Why cut the military

I know there are alot of problems in the world like poverty and hunger etc. i dont see why we have to weaken our military to help people. Keeping up with the military is mandatory its not right to weaken it while nations that hate us get stronger and threaten us. China is a great is example of this they want to take tawian, they would do anything to get tawain back thats why they threaten to blow up l.a. and threaten war with the u.s. Another example is russia. All of us know that russia is weak and doesnt have the money to have a good military but let me ask you this why are they conducting military exercises against the u.s. when the cold war is over ? why arnt the letting us inspect their new icbms and the numbers ? why are they working on weapons that can confuse the our missile defence ? Im sick and tired of people who supports cutting the military they keep thinking that we are strong and junk when the equipment we have is outdated they think were still strong when we undermine our military saying oh u.s. is strong no one can beat us. IF kerry gets elected he is going to destroy the military and you people will still think the u.s. is strong , yea you can keep thinking this until the day we are attacked by china or russia. While we disarm they get stronger they are going to wait until we are weak then hit us. Im not a big fan of bush but id rather have him because he makes the military stronger then to have kerry who is a peacnik that supports to weaken military. I would rather be poor and hungry then to have a weak military that alows another big country to run us down.

russia is doing exercise to show its stil able to kcik ass.
also do you think the russians really wanna go to war? no they dont they want to live in thier country happily.
also WHY WOULD CHINA ATTACK?
they have no need. you are thier biggest import/exsport traders
not every country out thier is trying to kill you stop beiing paranoid.
i mean look at the UK like oh the french might invade us ..............yeah right sure.

Because war between industrialized nations is outdated, WWII has shown us what it does. Now the threat to the in industrialized world is rogue 3rd world states and terrorist groups. Something which takes a lot less military power to defeat.

Originally posted by Kozzy
Because war between industrialized nations is outdated, WWII has shown us what it does. Now the threat to the in industrialized world is rogue 3rd world states and terrorist groups. Something which takes a lot less military power to defeat.

I would think defeating terrorist groups and rogue 3rd world states would be harder because of the unconventional means used It may take less raw power than defeating a rich industrialised nation but people shouldn't underestimate the amount needed to combat these threats.

[edit on 24/7/04 by Hyperen]

Yes I too would rather have bush as commander in chief than Kerry will cut down on our military and he will kiss up to France something that is not acceptable while Bush like Regan raises military budget and they both liked the idea of a shield against ICBM's also as long as we have a president who wont site back and not take action like Clinton I like bush he is a man of first strike get to them before they get to us. And hopefully the US military gets bigger to be at least 2.5 mil.

Originally posted by devilwasp
russia is doing exercise to show its stil able to kcik ass.
also do you think the russians really wanna go to war? no they dont they want to live in thier country happily.
also WHY WOULD CHINA ATTACK?

russia doenst need to worry about spending more on military casue they have a lot of stuff.


why would china atack tiawan? pure arrogance

It's got the stuff but a lot of it rusts away in a gated area somewhere or rusts in a harbor like a good amount of the navy.

They have the gear but lack the funds to keep it maintained and worthy of operations.

But they are comin back. ... Slowly.

[edit on 24-7-2004 by RedOctober90]

[edit on 24-7-2004 by RedOctober90]

[edit on 24-7-2004 by RedOctober90]

But they are comin back. ... Slowly.

They are giving and selling a lot of their stuff to china they better be careful before they find themselves behind china I know they need money that is why they are selling a lot of their tech but they have to be careful the chicoms are notorious for copying and stealing.

Everyone bashed Clinton (even me) for cutting the military budget when he did it in his 2nd term. But now I think about it completely different. Clinton cut the military budget 10%, taking it just below the budget during the Cold War. We were in an arms race with the Soviet Union, and our military budget never dropped until Clinton. Now its way up compared to the Cold War. War is outdated. Yes, we will get into wars. Yes, China is a threat. But we have the military capability to wipe out the entire world many times over. Americans are so paranoid that if we drop our guard (not really defenseless, but decreasing defense spending), that Russia, China, or some other country, would obliterate us. The world gets smaller everyday. With the internet and growing ease of global communications, ideas and knowledge spread quickly. America goes to war without cause: the rest of the world starts complaining, and it gets back to our citizens, and now we have huge decent. It would work the same for any other country, with the slight exception of dictatorships where the government has a control in place over the people. The biggest thing governments fear is not other governments, but their own people.

I see westpoint is the only one that understands the situation with military. The rest of you think china will not attack taiwan, russia is weak keep thinking that just keep thinking it. Until that day comes the people who cut the military and thought lowly of china and russia will be the ones who complain that we are too weak we cant retaliate. I dont see how people cant see china as THREAT when they THREATEN TO GO TO WAR OVER A SMALL ISLAND AND BLOW UP L.A. AT THE SAME TIME STEALING TECH. I DONT SEE HOW PEOPLE CANT SEE RUSSIA AS A THREAT WHEN THEY ARE CONDUCTING HUGE EXERCISES AGAISNT US AND MAKING NEW WEAPONS THAT CAN CONFUSE OUR MISSILE DEFENCE. WE ARE DISSARMING WHILE THEY GET STRONGER. just wait untill all our nukes are gone and china goes for taiwan then you will see.

Originally posted by blacman2k6
I see westpoint is the only one that understands the situation with military. The rest of you think china will not attack taiwan, russia is weak keep thinking that just keep thinking it. Until that day comes the people who cut the military and thought lowly of china and russia will be the ones who complain that we are too weak we cant retaliate. I dont see how people cant see china as THREAT when they THREATEN TO GO TO WAR OVER A SMALL ISLAND AND BLOW UP L.A. AT THE SAME TIME STEALING TECH. I DONT SEE HOW PEOPLE CANT SEE RUSSIA AS A THREAT WHEN THEY ARE CONDUCTING HUGE EXERCISES AGAISNT US AND MAKING NEW WEAPONS THAT CAN CONFUSE OUR MISSILE DEFENCE. WE ARE DISSARMING WHILE THEY GET STRONGER. just wait untill all our nukes are gone and china goes for taiwan then you will see.

dont vote liberal then.

Hey jabba you think clinton is good look what he did to our first strike policy check out his version of it , its mad its called pdd- 60 search it on web or go to barnes and noble and buy the book on liberals.


www.uhuh.com...

heres some of it


Launch on Warning

Bell said the press had incorrectly indicated that the PDD "still allows" the United States to launch nuclear weapons upon receiving warning of an attack. Bell emphasized that "there is no change in this PDD with respect to U.S. policy on launch on warning and that policy is that we do not, not rely on it." In fact, Bell said "in this PDD we direct our military forces to continue to posture themselves in such a way as to not rely on launch on warning--to be able to absorb a nuclear strike and still have enough force surviving to constitute credible deterrence."

Bell pointed out that while the United States has always had the "technical capability" to implement a policy of launch on warning, it has chosen not to do so. "Our policy is to confirm that we are under nuclear attack with actual detonations before retaliating," he said.

I know im not voting liberal but what about the other people voting for liberal who dont know how the liberals weaken security and defence.

You guys really crack me up. It sounds like if Kerry hits office, all our branches are just going to vanish, and the citizens are actually going to have to defend themselves. Please. Even if Kerry is elected, the military isn't going anywhere. The Air, Sea, Ground, and (potientially) Space forces will still remain active and functional. In fact I'd be willing to wager that with the pressure toned down a bit, morale will go up, thereby increasing effectiveness. More than likely, forces will probably be reallocated to CONUS, save for just enough to make a strong foot hold in Iraq, and perhaps a small resistance contingent in the Pacific as a caution flag to North Korea. I seriously doubt that the money being cut is going exclusively to just 'helping others', I am quite sure it will be used to strengthen border guard, and space/science exploration. I have noticed that whenever an administration is reported by the Media that they are cutting back on 'such and such', then almost never list everything that is to be refunded through said cutback, ok; sometimes 1 or 2 things, but certainly no where near a thorough investigation as a copy of an invoice. (which still leaves room for blk operations, those never appear on invoices, for obvious reasons). Just because an administration may under go leadership changes, does not change issues already in flux. We will still have to deal with Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and the Border issues, regardless who gets voted in(including the entirety of the adminstration). Anyone who wants to make a non-move on those issues is a fool, I will concur with you on that. I highly doubt that either potiential administration is going to be apathetic in the absolute sense. Has anyone considered talking to anyone from North Korea about their feelings regarding the current situation, or are we going to be basing this on assumptions regarding their common folk?

I just wanted to observe a quiet moment of silent lament for the lost art of paragraphization.

Ok, the quiet moment is over. Didn't mean to kill the thread either. Feel free to ignore my post and continue as if nothing happened. I guess I am the only liberal who actually sees a need for a functional military without going overboard one way or the other. Too little and yes we compromise security(of the nation and it's people), too much and yes we compromise security(of the people).

Would it not be reasonable to agree that putting us on a defensive position rather than on an offensive footing, would keep our troops and equipment logistics healthy, instead of running head first into fire, getting it destroyed, only to have to increase spending rates to keep up with reckless decisions by the adminstration.

If we just secure our position in Iraq, return the surplus home, then divide the sum of the surplus and fresh recruits by a halve, then send them out to the pacific to make sure everyone plays nice, then resources are not wasted, civilian money is not wasted, people are happy since conflict is now keep at a even heel, and security is not compromised on any front. This means we will have a surplus here to guard the mainland from invasion.

That is the strategy I hope either potiential administration will take to put this country back into it's proper position in the world.

Originally posted by Kozzy
Because war between industrialized nations is outdated, WWII has shown us what it does. Now the threat to the in industrialized world is rogue 3rd world states and terrorist groups. Something which takes a lot less military power to defeat.

Haha that is the bigges bunch of #IUU@IO!! there is. It takes one and only one. If we weaken our military we will be a target. Has history not taught us anything? The weak will get attaked and OWNED!!

"In war there is no substitute for victory."
- Gen Douglas MacArthur

"I Shall Return"
- Gen Douglas MacArthur

There is no security in this life. There is only opportunity.
- Gen Douglas Macarthur

As is with those who are too eager and impatient. Complacency and apathy is dangerous, reckless angst with minimal reasoning is an equal danger to security. I think Iraq reminded us of that.

Originally posted by Crysstaafur
Feel free to ignore my post and continue as if nothing happened.

Well, it was intended as sort of a hit-and-run comment on style, but for what it's worth, I agree that a balanced approach to the military is the way to go.

We may disagree on details -- I think the retooling we require may not be as cheap as anyone would like -- but spending too much on the military can be as devastating as (perhaps even moreso than) not spending enough.

I think Rumsfeld is on the right track in wanting to streamline forces and improve mobility, but the task of realigning such a huge organization with such massive political control and involvement is much easier said than done. The Pentagon cannot turn on a dime, especially with Congress backseat-driving on budgets and allocations.

Remember that pork originates in and is aggressively promoted and defended by Congress. If you want to control military spending, reign in Congressional extravagance, if you can. Fail to do that and we will continue to spend way too much on the military, and everything else.

Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to do any of this without a real republic. The theft of the Senate from state governments sealed our fate a century ago.

dont vote liberal then.

Yes people don't vote liberal unless you want to be speaking Chinese. Just like Clinton cave the chicoms secret military info so will Kerry.
Also I like Donald rumsfeld but this crazy idea that he has about cutting down our forces is not too bright i side with Paul wolfowitz and the pentagon who want to make our military a heavier force and much bigger so we can act alone on any war without asking for help. To me this is a great idea the US can fight anywhere with no allies and we don't have to ask the UN