Do we spend enough on the Military?

[Tigerace117]

Our platoon started with 70. We finished with 38.

Are you a fat boy? Are you gonna make it through? Many do not. It's perhaps not as easy as you think it's going to be. And it's not fun.

Nope. I'm actually a bit underweight for my size. I'm out lifting five times a week.

If I wanted to have easy fun, I'd go to ****ing Disneyworld.

I like challenges.

 

[Tigerace117]

Todays youth measure things more poorly than have any generation as youth in ions.

Seem to not take to learnin neither.

CURB YOUR ARROGANCE

In "ions"?

Seriously buddy?

First of all, the word is eons.

Secondly, you really aren't in a position to criticize anybody about "arrogance".

 

[Tigerace117]

I wouldn't put the early Panzers above the Matilda.

Well, not the Panzer I or II, but neither of those were really designed to fight enemy tanks in the first place.

The Matilda II had thicker armor than the Panzer III, but it's gun was underpowered. A tank which can shrug off almost any enemy fire doesn't much good if it can't do much damage once it gets there.

 

[Hawkeye10]

In "ions"?

Seriously buddy?

First of all, the word is eons.

Secondly, you really aren't in a position to criticize anybody about "arrogance".

Of course I am, it is not arrogance if we are telling the truth, the truth is the get out of jail free card for all of these phoney illnesses of man diagnoses that the UTOPIA BUILDERS come up with to drive their agenda.

And lets not beat around the bush, it any group I am always the best Truth Teller.

Eons Ions....who gives a ****.

 

[Tigerace117]

Of course I am, it is not arrogance if we are telling the truth, the truth is the get out of jail free card for all of these phoney illnesses of man diagnoses that the UTOPIA BUILDERS come up with to drive their agenda.

And lets not beat around the bush, it any group I am always the best Truth Teller.

You often don't tell the truth at all, which is rather an impediment when it comes to being a "truth teller".

 

[Hawkeye10]

You often don't tell the truth at all, which is rather an impediment when it comes to being a "truth teller".

You made the charge, now you are honor bound to prove it.

Either prove it or apologize.

I insist.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Well, not the Panzer I or II, but neither of those were really designed to fight enemy tanks in the first place.

The Matilda II had thicker armor than the Panzer III, but it's gun was underpowered. A tank which can shrug off almost any enemy fire doesn't much good if it can't do much damage once it gets there.

Well an important part is also being able to take out the enemy infantry supporting the panzers, which the Matilda had the firepower to due so.

But as usual, any discussion about the armor at play in German invasion of the west is largely secondary to the greater strategic and operational situation that led to it's outcome.

 

[Tigerace117]

You made the charge, now you are honor bound to prove it.

I insist.

You claimed that Trump supporters were treated as badly as African Americans had been in the past; that this treatment was equivalent and that Trump supporters were the new *******

 

[Hawkeye10]

You claimed that Trump supporters were treated as badly as African Americans had been in the past; that this treatment was equivalent and that Trump supporters were the new *******

And I said that I would argue the point, though I never said "as badly as", that you invented.

We are supposed to be talking about dishonesty.

 

[Tigerace117]

Well an important part is also being able to take out the enemy infantry supporting the panzers, which the Matilda had the firepower to due so.

But as usual, any discussion about the armor at play in German invasion of the west is largely secondary to the greater strategic and operational situation that led to it's outcome.

Yes, "impassable" forests really do have a nasty habit of suddenly becoming quite passable.

If infantry disposal is your main concern, then even a Panzer II or Panzer III would be quite adequate. Unless, of course, you run into air power.....

 

[Tigerace117]

And I said that I would argue the point.

We are supposed to be talking about dishonesty.

Your claim was inherent dishonest. Historical fact shows this. It is not a debatable point.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Your claim was inherent dishonest. Historical fact shows this. It is not a debatable point.

Either that or you dont know your ass from a hole in the ground.

This is yet to be determined.

 

[Chips]

Neither the Taliban nor Saddam were democratically elected. As I've stated before as well, many of the regimes we have toppled that were "democratically elected" turned out to have only achieved that feat via Soviet manipulation.

It's funny, looks like they might have helped the current administration achieve power in our own country. How the tables have turned.

Regardless, the intent of the United States military is not to topple democratically elected governments [regardless of which external forces helped elect them]. Beyond that, we really don't have a lot of business running around deposing dictators either. I don't care if Saddam Hussein wasn't democratically elected, Iraq was a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the United States or it's interest.

And, as a general pattern all of these countries where we've installed 'democracy,' or in the case of several countries, installed dictators, the results have been terrible.

Chile, Vietnam, Iraq, Panama, etc., etc., etc.

It worked for a while, but then Saddam was still able to slaughter his own people in the interval.

Actually, the initial Gulf War action worked very well. The sovereignty of Kuwait was protected, and we removed our forces after the combat ended.

That the regime of Saddam Hussein continued to be terrible within the borders of Iraq is a different matter, which was never the intent of Operation Desert Storm.

 

[Chips]

"Don't get flanked." Ok mastermind, thanks for that tactical tidbit.

Bwahaha, that's probably the best take I've ever heard on The Art of War. Thank you for that, I needed a good laugh.

 

[Lafayette]

What do you think? Do we spend enough on the military?

In terms of Discretionary Spending the budget pie-chart looks like this percentage-wise and broken down into its main elements:

If the above is not sufficiently convincing to anyone of the wholly lop-sided unfairness of the spending - so much on DoD, so little on Social Services - then lay off the bottle ...

 

[trouble13]

I think thats kind of a facile argument, in both directions.

First of all, while I do agree that the military does provide an actual service to the country, I do feel that it is way bigger than it needs to be. The same security benefit could easily be achieved with a smaller military.

Second of all, social services do actually provide an effective service to the country. Especially where programs such as primary education or health care are considered.

Considering the amount of actual defending the Department of Defense does, I'd say it's more of a luxury item to some extent. Force projection across the globe was not what the founding fathers had in mind.



We spend more on everything than any other country, because we have the money to burn, and as you've said we also seem to have the money to waste.

But, that aside, I don't think government waste is really a good pillar of a concept to defund education. I think you're on the right track with removing waste, lets stick to that, rather than gutting critical programs.

Seemed to work for Toyota.

If your going to argue what the founding gf athers had in mind than you can start axing the social programs you just argued you want to fund.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Chips]

If your going to argue what the founding gf athers had in mind than you can start axing the social programs you just argued you want to fund.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Are you kidding me?

We're talking about the same Founding Fathers that felt it necessary to fund a Post Office in the 1780's?

But still found no room for a long-term standing army.

 

[Lafayette]

Well an important part is also being able to take out the enemy infantry supporting the panzers, which the Matilda had the firepower to due so.

But as usual, any discussion about the armor at play in German invasion of the west is largely secondary to the greater strategic and operational situation that led to it's outcome.

Who cares about armor thickness in tanks, present or past?

ISIS has no tanks - and they are the present enemy.

Besides, tanks employed in warfare are an anachronism - they impress the crowds and especially the "kids" driving them. They are otherwise "useless toys" ...

 

[Lafayette]

Are you kidding me? We're talking about the same Founding Fathers that felt it necessary to fund a Post Office in the 1780's? But still found no room for a long-term standing army.

When the long-term "standing DoD" is gobbling 54% of the discretionary budget and the Dept. of Education gets only 6%, one is obliged to ask some serious questions.

Our kids (just out of high-school and going nowhere) are a major part of unemployment numbers - and will remain so if they do not get a postsecondary education necessary for jobs in the New Economy (launched by the Information Age that is upon us). But, at present, that is forbidden due to the high cost of a Tertiary-level Degree.

We'd have done a lot better for this group had we elected Hillary who was promising* that her government would assume the total cost of a postsecondary education at a state school for any family member with a total income up to a limit of $100K per year. (In the US, the average income of an individual earner is $52K per year and about 80% earn less than $100K a year.)

By electing Donald Dork instead, we have shot our kids in the foot collectively as regards their future education. He's not going to touch the Education Budget ... !

*Having borrowed the idea from Bernie Sanders.

 

[DA60]

Who cares about armor thickness in tanks, present or past?

ISIS has no tanks - and they are the present enemy.

Besides, tanks employed in warfare are an anachronism - they impress the crowds and especially the "kids" driving them. They are otherwise "useless toys" ...

Actually, ISIL (the 'nation' version of ISIS) does have tanks...captured tanks. As many as 100.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_equipment_of_ISIL

And tanks are an especially valuable weapon in desert combat with it's wide open spaces and little natural cover.

 

[Winston]

If the above is not sufficiently convincing to anyone of the wholly lop-sided unfairness of the spending - so much on DoD, so little on Social Services - then lay off the bottle ...

I hold this truth to be self-evident. The largest federal bureaucracy is the Pentagon. Trump and by extension republicans and conservatives are preposterous for assuming the posture of budget hawks. If their objective is to control government spending; the number one offender is the DoD.. by giant margins.. it's not even close. The bloated bureaucracy of the DoD is the best place to make cuts that aren't operational. Since conservatives are not in favor of cutting defense. But, they are in favor of all but eliminating the EPA; I conclude that conservatives are phonies who are not fiscal-conservatives but simply pro-business. They use the patriotism and American lives as political props to push through a 100% profit-motivated agenda.

 

[Chips]

Our kids (just out of high-school and going nowhere) are a major part of unemployment numbers - and will remain so if they do not get a postsecondary education necessary for jobs in the New Economy (launched by the Information Age that is upon us). But, at present, that is forbidden due to the high cost of a Tertiary-level Degree.

I'd agree that we really need to rethink education, and that it should be more accurately funded.

However, I don't know that we need to really force everyone through postsecondary education. There are a lot of other options for people who aren't fitting into current paradigm, which wouldn't require that.

Honestly, I think part of the problem we are seeing now is the knee-jerk reaction to unemployment statistics, where people on the left are clamoring for more education to solve the problem, while people on the right are clamoring for protectionist measures to bring back the jobs.

Neither one is in tune with reality.

 

[Lafayette]

PAYOFF OF HIGHER EDUCATION

However, I don't know that we need to really force everyone through postsecondary education.

Yes, we do. Secondary education is not enough.

Perhaps you think a secondary-education means university? It includes also vocational-training. The point being that for whatever the degree-level, Tertiary Education should be available at a state-school free, gratis and for nothing*.

If a family wants to pay through-the-nose for a private school - so be it. The educational content of any program is not necessarily in the so-called calibre of its teachers. Far more important is the motivation of the student.

The educational caliber of any individual is within themselves and not necessarily the school where they are taught. Of course, the necessary quality is the "willingness to learn". Which is not always found in a good many students.

Yes, learning abilities are different for all of us. Some, nonetheless, is always better than none - and a nation can influence the volume of higher-education throughput by making it very low cost in nationally subsidized state-schools.

My point: The payoff is likely that we have lower costs of Unemployment Insurance over a person's lifetime ...

*Just like it is for secondary-schooling in the US.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

The thing that bugs me about this is, the American perception that defense spending grows as a function of time.. but, if someone proposes an educational program that costs $54 Billion dollars, they get screamed at by people saying, "Who's going to pay for it?" So, there's a double standard. If someone wants $54 Billion for bombs and warships, it's okay. But, if someone wants to invest $54 Billion dollars in education, they are "pie in the sky". Then conservatives set in with the argument of "I'm not paying for someone else's school." That's fair but, then that validates the liberal argument of, "I'm not paying for someone else's war."

I was going to write exactly this but you beat me to it. Bernie Sander's tuition free public college program would've cost about 70 billion a year, just a little more than this increase. For months we were assaulted with "Who's going to pay for that, comrade!?", then when it comes to a republican increase they have no problem spending other people's money. Hell, the war in Iraq alone could've made all colleges tuition free for 30 years. It's all about priorities and the republicans have shown where theirs is.

 

[Lafayette]

Actually, ISIL (the 'nation' version of ISIS) does have tanks...captured tanks. As many as 100.
And tanks are an especially valuable weapon in desert combat with it's wide open spaces and little natural cover.

ISIS is NOT fighting a defensive war in the desert. They just gave up the historic site of Palmyra in Syria without a battle. In fact, they have fought no war with tanks, they just let the boys parade around town in them. (ISIS has lost its hold on petrol supplies; those that remained around Raqqa have been destroyed by bombing. They have no petrol for the tanks.)

Their main source of defense is snipers that shoot-'n-move then shoot-'n-move around the cities - which is why it takes time to dislodge them. (The footage of the refugees coming out of Mosul is difficult to watch.)

But, the Iraqi army is succeeding bit-by-bit - Mosul will be recaptured totally in a month or so. The outlying towns around Raqqa are falling one by one because they are too difficult to defend. Raqqa will not fall easily because the Head ISIS Dork is holed up there.

Getting him hung-high on Main Street in downtown Raqqa would diminish the killing and time necessary to end this messy war ...