If only the politicians (red or blue) the military is fighting for would stop their often violent meddling around the world the size of all branches could be reduced. As a result, we'd be a lot safer. We all had a choice to support a peaceful leader who believes in strong national defense or a violent warmonger, the majority chose that later.
Don't continue to kid yourself, people.... It doesn't really matter if we have a "D" or an "R" in the white House. They are all sold out to the corporate oligarchy. If you don't see this, I have some GREAT 'beachfront' property for sale! (In Henderson, NV)
This idea comes up two days after the military in Ukraine tells the 'bosses' that they will NOT become involved in a civil issue?!?
There is none so blind as he (or she) who will not see...
The pResident has eliminated all the flag-officers who have stated that they will not order their soldiers to fire on American citizens. Then they realize that the enlisted and NCO's, for the most part, will not follow that kind of order anyways. So, do they choose to fix the REAL problem? (An overly bloated, ineffectual government cesspool.) No... they decide to get rid of the trained people who can come to the aid of the public against the criminals who populate D.C.
Wake up, people!
This is actually part of sequestration, unfortunately it is pretty clear that this is a political move coming up to the 2014 election cycle pitting domestic spending vs defense spending.
Currently, the Department of Defense spending is about 19% of the budget, yet the cuts being proposed by the administration account for 50% of sequestration cuts.
Military planners know, expect and plan for draw downs after major conflicts and recognize that they are proper, however, excessive drawdowns have historically been somewhat disastrous and have in the end cost needless loss of life and the need for excessive increases in spending in the future. For those of the belief that decreasing military spending would decrease or meddling in foreign affairs you are promoting folly. Politicians meddle, politicians create circumstances that put people in harms way, not generals.
The primary duty and responsibility of the federal government is the defense of the nation and the protection of our national interest which not only involves borders but also shipping lanes and the protection of our diplomats and their families abroad.
Do not make the mistake in believing for one second, that defense spending cuts are about reducing our meddling in foreign affairs, we meddled in Iran, Chile, Honduras, and countless other nations while we were in the midst of defense reductions in the past. Those who serve us, deserve the best in equipment, adequate manpower and adequate logistic system to undo what politicians inevitably always screw up.
Ya know what? never mind... Lets establish a government department that will be the spending watch-dog over the other spending watch-dogs we already have! It will only cost 15 billion dollars per year to make it work... and LOOK! At the end of each year, it will have saved the American taxpayer 30 million dollars! (Not to mention putting 1,000 people to work!)
What a BARGAIN!!!!!
(Oh yeah... we have done that a dozen times already, and have millions of underachievers being paid 10 times what they are worth, and five times more than the same job pays in the private sector.)
Government is the problem... NOT the solution...
Normally I would agree with you Howard, however, we are not talking across the board cuts here, we are talking increased spending over s majority of the budget at the expense of military manpower and retirement cuts to servicemen and women to get around mandatory cuts under sequestration. If every department of government got cut that way your statement ould have much greater validity
If only the politicians (red
If only the politicians (red or blue) the military is fighting for would stop their often violent meddling around the world the size of all branches could be reduced. As a result, we'd be a lot safer. We all had a choice to support a peaceful leader who believes in strong national defense or a violent warmonger, the majority chose that later.
Don't continue to kid
Don't continue to kid yourself, people.... It doesn't really matter if we have a "D" or an "R" in the white House. They are all sold out to the corporate oligarchy. If you don't see this, I have some GREAT 'beachfront' property for sale! (In Henderson, NV)
This idea comes up two days after the military in Ukraine tells the 'bosses' that they will NOT become involved in a civil issue?!?
There is none so blind as he (or she) who will not see...
The pResident has eliminated all the flag-officers who have stated that they will not order their soldiers to fire on American citizens. Then they realize that the enlisted and NCO's, for the most part, will not follow that kind of order anyways. So, do they choose to fix the REAL problem? (An overly bloated, ineffectual government cesspool.) No... they decide to get rid of the trained people who can come to the aid of the public against the criminals who populate D.C.
Wake up, people!
This is actually part of
This is actually part of sequestration, unfortunately it is pretty clear that this is a political move coming up to the 2014 election cycle pitting domestic spending vs defense spending.
Currently, the Department of Defense spending is about 19% of the budget, yet the cuts being proposed by the administration account for 50% of sequestration cuts.
Military planners know, expect and plan for draw downs after major conflicts and recognize that they are proper, however, excessive drawdowns have historically been somewhat disastrous and have in the end cost needless loss of life and the need for excessive increases in spending in the future. For those of the belief that decreasing military spending would decrease or meddling in foreign affairs you are promoting folly. Politicians meddle, politicians create circumstances that put people in harms way, not generals.
The primary duty and responsibility of the federal government is the defense of the nation and the protection of our national interest which not only involves borders but also shipping lanes and the protection of our diplomats and their families abroad.
Do not make the mistake in believing for one second, that defense spending cuts are about reducing our meddling in foreign affairs, we meddled in Iran, Chile, Honduras, and countless other nations while we were in the midst of defense reductions in the past. Those who serve us, deserve the best in equipment, adequate manpower and adequate logistic system to undo what politicians inevitably always screw up.
"The pResident has eliminated
"The pResident has eliminated all the flag-officers who have stated that they will not order their soldiers to fire on American citizens."
Just another dingbat conspiracy theory.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/citizens.asp
Thanks Sean for getting to
Thanks Sean for getting to that before I did...
If don't believe in greatly
If don't believe in greatly reducing the size of the military, than you're not serious about reducing government spending.
Snopes?!? You ARE kidding,
Snopes?!?
You ARE kidding, right?
Ya know what? never mind... Lets establish a government department that will be the spending watch-dog over the other spending watch-dogs we already have! It will only cost 15 billion dollars per year to make it work... and LOOK! At the end of each year, it will have saved the American taxpayer 30 million dollars! (Not to mention putting 1,000 people to work!)
What a BARGAIN!!!!!
(Oh yeah... we have done that a dozen times already, and have millions of underachievers being paid 10 times what they are worth, and five times more than the same job pays in the private sector.)
Government is the problem... NOT the solution...
What's wrong with Snopes? Or
What's wrong with Snopes? Or do you just have a problem with fact-based research?
I'm glad you asked, Howard.
I'm glad you asked, Howard. Snopes has been a reliable resource for years. John, what is wrong with Snopes?
Normally I would agree with
Normally I would agree with you Howard, however, we are not talking across the board cuts here, we are talking increased spending over s majority of the budget at the expense of military manpower and retirement cuts to servicemen and women to get around mandatory cuts under sequestration. If every department of government got cut that way your statement ould have much greater validity