• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Deep Cuts’ Coming to U.S. Army

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
by Stephen Green
June 25, 2013


Meet our new Army of One:


The Army will announce that it will cut more than 10 brigade combat teams, a significant reduction in the size of its fighting forces and combat power, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.

The Army previously announced it would reduce its end-strength from its current level of 541,000 to 490,000 soldiers by 2017 under the $487 billion of spending reductions mandated by the 2011 Budget Control Act, but has not detailed where it will cut. The Army is working to notify Congress of the cuts, an Army official told Stars and Stripes.


[Excerpt]

Read more:
The PJ Tatler » ‘Deep Cuts’ Coming to U.S. Army

Well Obama claims he will build a civilian security force. Remember? So what do we need an Army for?
 

RabidAlpaca

Engineer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
22,184
Reaction score
28,805
Location
American Refugee in Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Slash, slash, slash! Just what I like to see!

We don't need to be the police of the world. We can't afford that ****. Let's focus on us for a while.
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I can tell you that the Army, the military as a whole, can go with a whole lot less and spend its money wiser and can have little effect on combat power if done right.
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
here's a novel idea: instead of sending our troops overseas to "nation build" and provide security in 3rd world middle-eastern ****holes...why not send them to patrol and secure our own freakin border?
 

mak2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
12,050
Reaction score
5,716
Location
Indiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So does this mean we will only spend as more than the next 15 countries instead of 17?
 

66gardeners

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
1,651
Reaction score
418
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Not a whole lot of support for wars without end.
 

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
IMHO, the reduction in forces may be wise and achievable. Maybe we should stop using that bio-fuel at $60.00/gallon, then those thousand dollar toilet seats. I stop at the unreasonable R.O.E's, and reduction hot food to our men in the field. Maybe the diversion of the Billion rounds of ammo from DHS to the military might also be a useful move.
 

fmw

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
12,361
Reaction score
3,358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
here's a novel idea: instead of sending our troops overseas to "nation build" and provide security in 3rd world middle-eastern ****holes...why not send them to patrol and secure our own freakin border?

Because it is illegal for the U.S. military to ply its trade within the borders of the U.S.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
71,111
Reaction score
28,051
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Typical liberal action: Drastically cut our military so that the next time we need them they will be ineffective and a danger to themselves. Gotta love Democrats and their desire to kill our soldiers.
 

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Typical liberal action: Drastically cut our military so that the next time we need them they will be ineffective and a danger to themselves. Gotta love Democrats and their desire to kill our soldiers.

Where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that America can only be safe by outspending the next three largest military expenditure countries in the world by MORE THEN DOUBLE?
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,241
Reaction score
19,930
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Good, we are ending wars, no reason it should not be cut.
 

instagramsci

economically ☭ socially ☭
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
2,227
Reaction score
803
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Typical liberal action: Drastically cut our military so that the next time we need them they will be ineffective and a danger to themselves. Gotta love Democrats and their desire to kill our soldiers.

From which country do you fear invasion, exactly?
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
71,111
Reaction score
28,051
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
From which country do you fear invasion, exactly?

I don't fear invasion from any country. That doesn't mean we won't ever need a strong, effective and proficient military, though.

Look, the need to use our military can...and will...arise. It doesn't matter which Party is in control when it happens. What matters is...will our military be up to speed or not. We've seen in the past that the military suffers after the Democrats get their way and chop the hell out of our military budget. I, having been there...done that, don't want to see it happen again.

Democrats don't seem to care.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
71,111
Reaction score
28,051
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that America can only be safe by outspending the next three largest military expenditure countries in the world by MORE THEN DOUBLE?

What a dumbassed question!

I never said that, "America can only be safe by outspending the next three largest military expenditure countries in the world by MORE THEN DOUBLE". Why would you demand that I prove it?
 

American

Bier Meister
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
89,236
Reaction score
28,241
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
66,141
Reaction score
33,709
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Slash, slash, slash! Just what I like to see!

We don't need to be the police of the world. We can't afford that ****. Let's focus on us for a while.
Good point. Now that goods are used with Floo Powder, we don't need the ability to secure sea-lanes!:)
 

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What a dumbassed question!

I never said that, "America can only be safe by outspending the next three largest military expenditure countries in the world by MORE THEN DOUBLE". Why would you demand that I prove it?

Exactly where did I say that you did?

I simply asked you a question.

:rolleyes:

Okay, so this level of spending is apparently too much for you as well...good.



Here are 2 more questions - what level of military spending (budget size) do you want for America?

And whatever that level is - do you have ANY links to unbiased, factual proof that that level is required to justify the expenses that you want?
 
Last edited:

shrubnose

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
19,463
Reaction score
8,731
Location
Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
by Stephen Green
June 25, 2013


Meet our new Army of One:


The Army will announce that it will cut more than 10 brigade combat teams, a significant reduction in the size of its fighting forces and combat power, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.

The Army previously announced it would reduce its end-strength from its current level of 541,000 to 490,000 soldiers by 2017 under the $487 billion of spending reductions mandated by the 2011 Budget Control Act, but has not detailed where it will cut. The Army is working to notify Congress of the cuts, an Army official told Stars and Stripes.


[Excerpt]

Read more:
The PJ Tatler » ‘Deep Cuts’ Coming to U.S. Army

Well Obama claims he will build a civilian security force. Remember? So what do we need an Army for?




PJ Media is well known as the home of the Neocons.

It has zero credibility among those in the know.

If you want to hear Israel's point of view, read PJMedia.
 

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Good point. Now that goods are used with Floo Powder, we don't need the ability to secure sea-lanes!:)

What sea lanes did you have in mind?

And defend them from who exactly?
 

shrubnose

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
19,463
Reaction score
8,731
Location
Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I don't fear invasion from any country. That doesn't mean we won't ever need a strong, effective and proficient military, though.

Look, the need to use our military can...and will...arise. It doesn't matter which Party is in control when it happens. What matters is...will our military be up to speed or not. We've seen in the past that the military suffers after the Democrats get their way and chop the hell out of our military budget. I, having been there...done that, don't want to see it happen again.

Democrats don't seem to care.




The USA could cut its military expenditures in half (Which I advocate.) and it would still be spending more than the next four countries, two of which are our allies.

And we would still have the ability to destroy the world.
 

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The USA could cut its military expenditures in half (Which I advocate.) and it would still be spending more than the next four countries, two of which are our allies.

And we would still have the ability to destroy the world.

Cutting half sounds good to me as well.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
71,111
Reaction score
28,051
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Exactly where did I say that you did?

I simply asked you a question.

:rolleyes:

Okay, so this level of spending is apparently too much for you as well...good.

LOL!! Another nice attempt at putting words in my mouth...but once again, you fail. :naughty

Here are 2 more questions - what level of military spending (budget size) do you want for America?

And whatever that level is - do you have ANY links to unbiased, factual proof that that level is required to justify the expenses that you want?

All I'm saying is that we have seen the results of liberal/progressive/Democrat slashing of military spending. Those results are not good. When the military is needed again...soldiers needlessly die.

If you anti-military folks really want to cut government spending, you would be better served cutting the myriad entitlement programs, cutting the enormous number of useless and redundant agencies and programs...reducing the size, scope and power of the government. Not only would we still have an effective military to rely on when the need arises, we would also have a country of responsible, independent citizens.

Oh, wait...I forgot. You don't WANT responsible, independent citizens.

Never mind.
 

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
All I'm saying is that we have seen the results of liberal/progressive/Democrat slashing of military spending. Those results are not good. When the military is needed again...soldiers needlessly die.

If you anti-military folks really want to cut government spending, you would be better served cutting the myriad entitlement programs, cutting the enormous number of useless and redundant agencies and programs...reducing the size, scope and power of the government. Not only would we still have an effective military to rely on when the need arises, we would also have a country of responsible, independent citizens.

Oh, wait...I forgot. You don't WANT responsible, independent citizens.

Never mind.

I will ask you one more time...

What level of military spending (budget size) do you want for America?

And whatever that level is - do you have ANY links to unbiased, factual proof that that level is required to justify the expenses that you want?
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
72,279
Reaction score
55,243
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Honor and expand commitments to veterans, and reduce the military to peacetime levels. Then, if we need to scale it up in time of war, we enact wartime tax rates to pay for it. If the desire is to have a constant wartime military, then wartime tax rates need to be in place permanently. We can't have it both ways.
 
Top Bottom