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.
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?
That is what slick willie thought and then when we needed equipment thousands died needlessly because of the decisions he made
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.
Can you name such a piece of equipment we never had that cost thousands their lives? Or are you simply blowing smoke?
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.
I assume it is a reference to armor.
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
How many attacks on US Soil have taken place since? Why are you not complaing about the 6T plus spent the last four years?
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.
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.
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.
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.Stay tuned, and keep an eye on Greece.
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.
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
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?
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.
Can you name such a piece of equipment we never had that cost thousands their lives? Or are you simply blowing smoke?
I know you did not I did. I was agreeing with you. Read the first three words. Chilll man
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.
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?
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.
Can you name such a piece of equipment we never had that cost thousands their lives? Or are you simply blowing smoke?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?