This is why we need to raise taxes, there is simply nothing we can cut.

[blackjack50]

Pssst: South Korea can take care of itself. The only reason China doesn't dump the idiotic regime in N. Korea is our basis in S. Korea. The minute we leave, China ends N. Korean rule and does what it really wants to do -- trade and make money. N. Korea is a drag on China, and they want to dump them as much as we want them to go away.

In short hard power is counterproductive in a modern global economy.

So you TRUST the Chinese regime to lay down their arms and leave South Korea alone? Or do you think that North Korea would not do a thing if we didn't have a base and give technology to South Korea? Do you even know the numbers of military force in North Korea vs South Korea? How close Seoul is to the border? Like I said...you don't know much about the military.

 

[Wiseone]

We will see the same thing we saw after the liberal hero Bill Clinton cut the DOD, the first time we need them, soldiers will die needlessly because they are forced into action with crappy equipment. People that don't support our men and women defending our freedoms are lower than snake s**t.

What time was that? And what equipment did we have at the start of Clinton's Presidency that we could have used after his Presidency? Surely you have an example.

I'm one of those "defending our freedoms" why don't you support me when I say the military budget is bloated and it can accomplish the same with less money if it only learned to act a little more efficiently? And while we are on the topic of efficiency, would you at least agree that if we could accomplish the same for less by being more efficient it would be a good thing? Unless you think the US government spends money so perfectly that there is no waste in the DoD?

 

[TurtleDude]

What time was that? And what equipment did we have at the start of Clinton's Presidency that we could have used after his Presidency? Surely you have an example.

I'm one of those "defending our freedoms" why don't you support me when I say the military budget is bloated and it can accomplish the same with less money if it only learned to act a little more efficiently? And while we are on the topic of efficiency, would you at least agree that if we could accomplish the same for less by being more efficient it would be a good thing? Unless you think the US government spends money so perfectly that there is no waste in the DoD?

non doubt lots of military budget money is wasted. but at least that is a constitutional use of our tax dollars. Lots of people who want to cut the military are the same ones who think that the government ought to spend EVEN MORE on "create more dependent voters" social spending

 

[obvious Child]

That is what slick willie thought and then when we needed equipment thousands died needlessly because of the decisions he made

Can you name such a piece of equipment we never had that cost thousands their lives? Or are you simply blowing smoke?

 

[obvious Child]

So you TRUST the Chinese regime to lay down their arms and leave South Korea alone? Or do you think that North Korea would not do a thing if we didn't have a base and give technology to South Korea? Do you even know the numbers of military force in North Korea vs South Korea? How close Seoul is to the border? Like I said...you don't know much about the military.

South Korea is one of China's biggest trade partners. Taking over South Korea by force would be a horrible mistake for so many reasons, largely because it will confirm China's neighbors that China is in fact an enemy that cannot be trusted and must be contained. They ALREADY have these notions. Actually invading someone else would push them out of fringe beliefs to political platform status. Furthermore, the US forces in South Korea are little more than a trip wire. Same like we had in Germany during the Cold War. Those forces wouldn't have stopped a Soviet invasion any more then our units in South Korea will stop a North Korean assault. The ugly fact is they are meant to die to ensure that the US will not back out of its agreement. That said, the air assets we have in Japan are far more of a threat to a Korean invasion then our ground forces. We could bomb the **** out of a North Korean advance well before they even met our 35,000 soldiers on the ground. Number themselves do not mean much, but the US force in South Korea is little more then a token force. North Korea poses more of a threat from its massive artillery numbers aimed at Seoul then from its actual infantry and armor.

 

[Fisher]

Can you name such a piece of equipment we never had that cost thousands their lives? Or are you simply blowing smoke?

I assume it is a reference to armor.

 

[rjay]

We will see the same thing we saw after the liberal hero Bill Clinton cut the DOD, the first time we need them, soldiers will die needlessly because they are forced into action with crappy equipment. People that don't support our men and women defending our freedoms are lower than snake s**t.

The military Clinton had was the one left to him by Reagan and Bush I

Clinton's military is what Bush II had. The one that went into Afganistan and then Iraq. I don't recall any complaints about how poorly the U.S. Military was prepared and ready for those engagements.

Every President uses the military that was left to them by a previous President. If Obama makes cuts now the effect of those cuts, if any, will be felt by the next President.

 

[obvious Child]

I assume it is a reference to armor.

Like body armor? Body armor gets people killed because it slows them down during a firefight. Last I checked, many soldiers only used it when they knew they'd be going into a really bad firefight. In many ways, speed is life on the battlefield and body armor slows you down.

In terms of actual armor, we're still using the same tanks, fighting vehicles for actual combat we did back then. True, we have mine resistant truck now, but that wasn't a concern back when we were fighting conventional wars. Bush, Reagan, Clinton or the Pentagon never saw that coming.

I doubt that guy really has any idea what he's talking about. The wars that we were preparing to fight during the Reagan-Clinton eras are so vastly different from what we've been doing in the past decade that it's completely insane to blame them for not preparing for a type of conflict we see today as the main conflict we'd use the military for.

 

[Wiseone]

non doubt lots of military budget money is wasted. but at least that is a constitutional use of our tax dollars. Lots of people who want to cut the military are the same ones who think that the government ought to spend EVEN MORE on "create more dependent voters" social spending

I'm sorry I'm a pragmatist, whether something is constitutional or not doesn't mean a damn to me when that something is waste. Its irrelevant if waste is constitutional or not it needs to be eliminated.

 

[upsideguy]

How many attacks on US Soil have taken place since? Why are you not complaing about the 6T plus spent the last four years?

Yawn! First off, our pathetic response to 9/11 was to encroach on freedoms, not expand them. Americans should be ashamed at a response that was willing to send soldiers to supposedly die for our freedoms, while those of us at home were more than happy to surrender our freedoms to feed our irrational fear that otherwise we might die.

BTW, much of the $6T deficit are the costs of these meaningless wars? I hope you think they were worth it. I certainly do not. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (it was just Bush not letting a good crisis go to waste) nor did the occupation of Afghanistan.

 

[Master PO]

Thanksfully we don't live in Rome. We live in a modern economy. Which will be outcompeted if we don't stop spending vast sums on the dead weight of the military rather than on productivity, health care, education.

It's appropriate that you look to 4th century Rome to guide you. Conservatives are nothing if not archaic.

its clear you dont look and understand history.

that is your problem.

"those who forget history are condemned to repeat it"

 

[blackjack50]

South Korea is one of China's biggest trade partners. Taking over South Korea by force would be a horrible mistake for so many reasons, largely because it will confirm China's neighbors that China is in fact an enemy that cannot be trusted and must be contained. They ALREADY have these notions. Actually invading someone else would push them out of fringe beliefs to political platform status. Furthermore, the US forces in South Korea are little more than a trip wire. Same like we had in Germany during the Cold War. Those forces wouldn't have stopped a Soviet invasion any more then our units in South Korea will stop a North Korean assault. The ugly fact is they are meant to die to ensure that the US will not back out of its agreement. That said, the air assets we have in Japan are far more of a threat to a Korean invasion then our ground forces. We could bomb the **** out of a North Korean advance well before they even met our 35,000 soldiers on the ground. Number themselves do not mean much, but the US force in South Korea is little more then a token force. North Korea poses more of a threat from its massive artillery numbers aimed at Seoul then from its actual infantry and armor.

Forward observers in the U.S. military - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FGM-148 Javelin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FIM-92 Stinger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MIM-104 Patriot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

M1 Abrams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Boeing AH-64 Apache - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All of that is opperational in South Korea. I am sure that isn't it. While I agree that 30K troops isn't alot, you stated that the airpower in Japan is also important. Thank you for validating their existence too. That is certainly yet another factor to take the "small" military force in South Korea seriously. Forward observers combined with a10s, howitzers, javelin anti-tanks, and a whole heap of other anti-armor/vehicle weapons. Add on the mass quantities of anti-personel devices we most assuredly have...plus the Aircraft carriers in the region?

30K troops couldn't sustain a war. You are right. They are a little more than a "trip wire" though. The casulties inflicted on an invasion force by North Korea would be so devastating that it could not possibily sustain an attack overland attack. No way could they gain air superiority either. There is no naval option either. In short...there is no move for North Korea that wouldn't result in a devastating blow to their military force. A defensive force does not have to be a massive force. It simply has to be properly fortified, and have enough supplies and back up.

And isn't China's biggest "trading partner" the European Union? And isn't China an importer of goods, especially chemical goods, from South Korea? It seems to me that they lose money to South Korea? Certainly it wouldn't be like the Chinese to use a puppet state to take over South Korea to get cheap goods? No. Nobody would ever think to do that?

I am not saying that we need to lose our minds over the issue. I don't think we need to let down our fence though.

 

[wolfman24]

I didn't say there aren't places that don't need to be "put to the sword." I think there are plenty of Federal departments that can be done away with...based solely on the fact that they don't really do anything that can't be done more effeciently for a profit/by smaller buisness. There is a reason surgeons have bone saws and power tools for cutting.

I know you did not I did. I was agreeing with you. Read the first three words. Chilll man

 

[snodog]

Stay tuned, and keep an eye on Greece.

Greece is a currency user not a currency issuer like the US, Japan, and GB. This is why rates on Greece government bonds are high while rates on the currency issuer governments are near record lows.
The video I linked to explained this, perhaps you should watch it?

 

[Mithros]

There is so much wasteful spending in this country. I could make one simple move that would reduce spending and increase employment. Simply cut food stamps and those without would suddenly find a job.

Certainly a few individuals would find work, and a few more would probably stop paying for heat and electricity so that they could buy food.

After starving for a few days, others would see your nice warm house, stocked with food and say to themselves.... I could try to find a job that doesn't exist, or I could just rob this house. Hmmmm.... tough choice.

By removing food stamps you're removing demand from the economy, which will hurt local businesses, you're creating a more desperate work force which will force all wages downward, and you're creating more crime and criminals.. and crime is damn expensive.

Currently crime costs 1.7 Trillion /year. The foodstamps program costs $82 billion, nearly all of it going to local supermarkets. Crime only has to go up by 4.8% to erase all savings, and that's entirely neglecting the multiplier effect.

 

[OscarB63]

This is perhaps the 10th variation on the spending cut theme, blax has posted. Enough is enough.

Here's a concept: it's stupid to cut spending in a recession and its aftermath, except perhaps military spending, which is dead weight on the economy

how many jobs does that dead weight of military spending provide? how much taxes do the people working in or for the military pay? (hint...it's way more than all the people on welfare and food stamps) advocating cutting spending in areas that actually produce jobs while crying not to cut entitlements that produce nothing is beyond stupid

 

[blaxshep]

Greece is a currency user not a currency issuer like the US, Japan, and GB. This is why rates on Greece government bonds are high while rates on the currency issuer governments are near record lows.
The video I linked to explained this, perhaps you should watch it?

That may be true for now but as our debt increases confidance on the dollar decreases.

The IMF, China, Russia and sevral other major players in the world economy have already begun removing the dollar form being the world's reserve currency. Once this happens we will no longer be currency issuer for anyone other than ourselves.

 

[OscarB63]

Clinton's military is what Bush II had. The one that went into Afganistan and then Iraq. I don't recall any complaints about how poorly the U.S. Military was prepared and ready for those engagements.

obviously you were never there in the early days of the "war", wearing crappy body armor and riding around in unarmored vehicles with whatever jury rigged crap welded, strapped, bolted to the sides you could find in order to provide some small measure of protection

 

[OscarB63]

Can you name such a piece of equipment we never had that cost thousands their lives? Or are you simply blowing smoke?

MRAPs and M1151s for a couple. thousands is stretching it, but not having armored transport vehicles definitely cost lives in the beginning.

 

[blackjack50]

I know you did not I did. I was agreeing with you. Read the first three words. Chilll man

I was ensuring you were aware that I am not about "precision" cutting alone. You gotta cut limbs off too.

 

[head of joaquin]

how many jobs does that dead weight of military spending provide?

A lot fewer than the number of jobs created by any other kind of spending. That's what all the economic data shows. Deal with it, instead of posting rightwing talking points.

 

[OscarB63]

A lot fewer than the number of jobs created by any other kind of spending.

more lies and spin (aka "talking points" ) how many jobs does welfare and food stamps create?

 

[Rocketman]

What time was that? And what equipment did we have at the start of Clinton's Presidency that we could have used after his Presidency? Surely you have an example.

I'm one of those "defending our freedoms" why don't you support me when I say the military budget is bloated and it can accomplish the same with less money if it only learned to act a little more efficiently? And while we are on the topic of efficiency, would you at least agree that if we could accomplish the same for less by being more efficient it would be a good thing? Unless you think the US government spends money so perfectly that there is no waste in the DoD?

I think there is waste across the board, and I think all programs should be looked at by someone that is not a government employee

 

[Rocketman]

The military Clinton had was the one left to him by Reagan and Bush I

Clinton's military is what Bush II had. The one that went into Afganistan and then Iraq. I don't recall any complaints about how poorly the U.S. Military was prepared and ready for those engagements.

Every President uses the military that was left to them by a previous President. If Obama makes cuts now the effect of those cuts, if any, will be felt by the next President.

How soon we forget, you don't remember the boys that died needlessly because of armorless humvees and kevlar vests.

 

[Rocketman]

Can you name such a piece of equipment we never had that cost thousands their lives? Or are you simply blowing smoke?

armor for humvees and Kevlar vests