"Cuts in Military Pay and Benefits on the Table"

#51
#51
nbakerld said:
Sorry, what's TSS?

Please explain to me how a base in Germany is in my best interest. If I recall correctly, you have a degree in Econ. I just don't see how this is feasible if you conduct cost benefit analysis. We are protecting ourselves against unlikely hypothetical risks, and spending a ****load doing it.
Click to expand...

Your personal best interest means dick to me, but they guys making real strategic decisions about our national security believe firmly in having regional staging bases around the world, for the purposes of getting to avoid defending your actual ass on our own dirt. Defending on their own shores is for people to poor to do it otherwise or too stupid to understand it can be avoided.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#52
#52
BigPapaVol said:
The savings would only be nominal, unless you're advocating drawing those troops down altogether. They are only minimally more expensive in Vicenza than they are at Bragg.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


Sec. Gates acknowledged excess force structure in Europe during a January 6, 2011, speech, in which he outlined approximately $100 billion in overall defense spending cuts over five years. He indicated that cost-saving consolidations and streamlining headquarters in Europe would be appropriate, given the number of troops and the nature of the military operations on the continent.

Sen. Hutchison Applauds Proposed Overseas Basing Reductions to Curtail Defense Spending Kay Bailey Hutchison | U.S. Senator - Texas
 
#53
#53
WillisWG said:
Sec. Gates acknowledged excess force structure in Europe during a January 6, 2011, speech, in which he outlined approximately $100 billion in overall defense spending cuts over five years. He indicated that cost-saving consolidations and streamlining headquarters in Europe would be appropriate, given the number of troops and the nature of the military operations on the continent.

Sen. Hutchison Applauds Proposed Overseas Basing Reductions to Curtail Defense Spending Kay Bailey Hutchison | U.S. Senator - Texas
Click to expand...

But that's a drawdown, not just bringing troops home. If we believe that the force is too large, then that's an option. I don't like it it, but understand it. Doing same in Asia because of a blanket pronouncement is retarded.

I'm actually all for telling the farging Eurosocialist douchebags to foot their own bill.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#54
#54
BigPapaVol said:
Your personal best interest means dick to me, but they guys making real strategic decisions about our national security believe firmly in having regional staging bases around the world, for the purposes of getting to avoid defending your actual ass on our own dirt. Defending on their own shores is for people to poor to do it otherwise or too stupid to understand it can be avoided.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Defending your ass on your own dirt is for wankers and sheep shaggers.
 
#55
#55
BigPapaVol said:
Your personal best interest means dick to me, but they guys making real strategic decisions about our national security believe firmly in having regional staging bases around the world, for the purposes of getting to avoid defending your actual ass on our own dirt. Defending on their own shores is for people to poor to do it otherwise or too stupid to understand it can be avoided.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

So how often do they "defend our asses" on other people's dirt? I'm not seeing it. Nobody wants to go toe-to-toe with us. Whether it's here or there.
 
#56
#56
nbakerld said:
So how often do they "defend our asses" on other people's dirt? I'm not seeing it. Nobody wants to go toe-to-toe with us. Whether it's here or there.
Click to expand...

The world us a small place. Failure to plan for the eventuality of defending your shortsighted ass would be monumental failure on the part of our government. Pulling in all tentacles would be the first step in that direction.

Have you considered some of the reasons we haven't defended ourselves very often? Maybe that trip would help.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#57
#57
BigPapaVol said:
The world us a small place. Failure to plan for the eventuality of defending your shortsighted ass would be monumental failure on the part of our government. Pulling in all tentacles would be the first step in that direction.

Have you considered some of the reasons we haven't defended ourselves very often? Maybe that trip would help.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


Correct. Unfortunately the average person is oblivious to the constant struggle and what it requires to keep things that way.
 
Last edited:
#58
#58
military isolationism is one of the problems I have with the Libertarian Party. It's also one of the things you must basically sign off on if you want to become a member of the LP.

I think the number of overseas bases could be reduced through consolidation. One problem we have is every time an EU base gets slated for closure/relocation, the host country begins to scream about all the jobs that will be lost to the local economy. I still think it would be a good idea to leave Germany in favor of some of the old Soviet bases that have been abandoned in Eastern Europe.
 
#59
#59
MG1968 said:
military isolationism is one of the problems I have with the Libertarian Party. It's also one of the things you must basically sign off on if you want to become a member of the LP.
Click to expand...

Washington didn't have a problem with it. It's not isolationism, it's non-interventionism. Our entangling alliances are ridiculously convoluted and put us in danger. For instance, that fiasco between Israel and Turkey a few years back put us in a bad spot. Do we take NATO's side? Or Israel's side? Luckily it went away.

Libertarians have a pretty good argument. Even if you disagree with it. WWII and Intervention vs Non-intervention:

YouTube - ‪SA Radio - World War 2 and American Intervention‬‏
 
#61
#61
BigPapaVol said:
The world us a small place. Failure to plan for the eventuality of defending your shortsighted ass would be monumental failure on the part of our government. Pulling in all tentacles would be the first step in that direction.

Have you considered some of the reasons we haven't defended ourselves very often? Maybe that trip would help.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Yes I've considered that. But guess what? There is no hard evidence to support that. And since we are spending ourselves into oblivion to position military all over the world, the onus is on your side to prove it's necessary.
 
#62
#62
nbakerld said:
Yes I've considered that. But guess what? There is no hard evidence to support that. And since we are spending ourselves into oblivion to position military all over the world, the onus is on your side to prove it's necessary.
Click to expand...

You keep your head in the sand and the professionals making the decisions will continue to laugh about your position while properly defending the place as it needs to be. As to your stats, TSS isn't going to help you parse overseas spending from our budget and you clearly don't know enough about strategic defense to begin talking about actual savings from cuts.

Given that you're the simpleton advocating change, clearly the onus belongs on my shoulders. That's sensible.
 
#63
#63
I agree there are things we can do to parse military spending in a big way, but significantly reducing our world presence is not one of them.

Just heard Kissinger on npr a minute ago, and he of course advocates a path to peaceful resolution to pretty much all of our conflicts, but recognized that much tension could and probably will be on the way. This is no time to shrink
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#64
#64
nbakerld said:
Yes I've considered that. But guess what? There is no hard evidence to support that. And since we are spending ourselves into oblivion to position military all over the world, the onus is on your side to prove it's necessary.
Click to expand...

There's plenty of evidence to support the need of off shore operations and having a military presence abroad. I have a feeling that the rabbit hole your going down will only end when something actually happens here on US soil and that's an unfortunate point of view.

I can assure you there are more things happening in the background that you are unaware of that would change your tune.
 
#65
#65
BigPapaVol said:
You keep your head in the sand and the professionals making the decisions will continue to laugh about your position while properly defending the place as it needs to be. As to your stats, TSS isn't going to help you parse overseas spending from our budget and you clearly don't know enough about strategic defense to begin talking about actual savings from cuts.

Given that you're the simpleton advocating change, clearly the onus belongs on my shoulders. That's sensible.
Click to expand...

So you don't have any evidence to support it? You just have faith that these government employees know what they're doing. I don't have that faith. I think government is wasteful, inefficient, and self-preserving. No matter what reality is, government tries to make you believe every part of its existence is absolutely necessary and that it needs to grow. And they truly believe it. The military is no different.

They don't conduct cost benefit analysis in the interest of the American citizen. They are just trying to get national security risks as close to 0 as possible. No matter the cost. It's the same thing the EPA does with pollution. It's the same thing law enforcement tries to do with crime. It's an impossible ideal and we let them run away with our money.

Greece and Rome destroyed themselves because they devalued their currencies to pay for war and empire. Forget that I used the word "empire" and think about how we're paying for our military industrial complex. The economic threats to America are a lot more real than anything Russia may do to us.

Look at that...I was able to argue my point without insults. :pepper:
 
#66
#66
nbakerld said:
So you don't have any evidence to support it? You just have faith that these government employees know what they're doing. I don't have that faith. I think government is wasteful, inefficient, and self-preserving. No matter what reality is, government tries to make you believe every part of its existence is absolutely necessary and that it needs to grow. And they truly believe it. The military is no different.

They don't conduct cost benefit analysis in the interest of the American citizen. They are just trying to get national security risks as close to 0 as possible. No matter the cost. It's the same thing the EPA does with pollution. It's the same thing law enforcement tries to do with crime. It's an impossible ideal and we let them run away with our money.

Greece and Rome destroyed themselves because they devalued their currencies to pay for war and empire. Forget that I used the word "empire" and think about how we're paying for our military industrial complex. The economic threats to America are a lot more real than anything Russia may do to us.

Look at that...I was able to argue my point without insults. :pepper:
Click to expand...

It sounds to me like you know nothing about the military, insults or otherwise.

Oh, and simpleton was about the absurdly simplistic approach you're taking to strategic national defense. It's almost as ludicrous as your all things TSS silliness on basketball.
 
#67
#67
BigPapaVol said:
It sounds to me like you know nothing about the military, insults or otherwise.

Oh, and simpleton was about the absurdly simplistic approach you're taking to strategic national defense. It's almost as ludicrous as your all things TSS silliness on basketball.
Click to expand...

At what point does the military say "we have a big enough budget and a sufficient number of foreign bases"?

I personally don't think they're ever going to say they have enough.
 
#68
#68
nbakerld said:
So you don't have any evidence to support it? You just have faith that these government employees know what they're doing. I don't have that faith. I think government is wasteful, inefficient, and self-preserving. No matter what reality is, government tries to make you believe every part of its existence is absolutely necessary and that it needs to grow. And they truly believe it. The military is no different.

They don't conduct cost benefit analysis in the interest of the American citizen. They are just trying to get national security risks as close to 0 as possible. No matter the cost. It's the same thing the EPA does with pollution. It's the same thing law enforcement tries to do with crime. It's an impossible ideal and we let them run away with our money.

Greece and Rome destroyed themselves because they devalued their currencies to pay for war and empire. Forget that I used the word "empire" and think about how we're paying for our military industrial complex. The economic threats to America are a lot more real than anything Russia may do to us.

Look at that...I was able to argue my point without insults. :pepper:
Click to expand...


Have you already forgotten the WTC attack? There is plenty of evidence all over the globe to suggest other countries and societies wish us ill will and destruction and will stop at nothing to see it through.

The government is corrupt, wasteful, and inefficent in many ways, but short changing national defense because you're not told of all the attempts that were stopped is kind of narrow minded don't you think? It's almost as though your mindset is out of sight - out of mind. We take the fight to them because we would prefer for it not to be in our backyard....
 
#69
#69
nbakerld said:
At what point does the military say "we have a big enough budget and a sufficient number of foreign bases"?

I personally don't think they're ever going to say they have enough.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm all for paring down the budget, just not blindly as you're advocating. They might not ever say enough and that needs to be reined in. I have never said otherwise. What I'm saying is that your approach is unbelievably simple, to the point of nonsensical.

There is ample place to save money. Give them a hard budget, tell them the mission is defense of the US and its strategic interests and get on down the road. You'll find quickly where the cuts originate. It's unlikely to be overseas bases to any real degree.
 
#70
#70
xXRockyTopXx said:
Have you already forgotten the WTC attack? There is plenty of evidence all over the globe to suggest other countries and societies wish us ill will and destruction and will stop at nothing to see it through.

The government is corrupt, wasteful, and inefficent in many ways, but short changing national defense because you're not told of all the attempts that were stopped is kind of narrow minded don't you think? It's almost as though your mindset is out of sight - out of mind. We take the fight to them because we would prefer for it not to be in our backyard....
Click to expand...

Really? I'm pretty sure we had military bases all over the world when that one happened.
 
#71
#71
nbakerld said:
Really? I'm pretty sure we had military bases all over the world when that one happened.
Click to expand...

True, also keep in mind that homeland defense was not what is it today either. The bases exist overseas for many reasons. Could we do without some of them? I'm sure we could, but to close all of them would be foolish to say the least. Logistics, training, defense shields, intel...the list goes on and on as to why we have them.
 
#72
#72
I laugh at the idea of fighting on our turf. I have a hard time imaging a country with enough stones to invade that doesn't have the resources to build a nuclear arsenal, and at that point, I can't imagine an invasion. I believe that for the forseable future, wars will only be fought amongst uneven countries. Too many nuclear powers, and invasions are quite stupid.
 
#73
#73
The .01% chance 9/11 could have been thwarted rested on the CIA and TSA. Terrorism from the ME is far from the only thing coming down the road.
 
#74
#74
BLUF: If you want a national defense posture, you keep our bases throughout the world.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#75
#75
therealUT said:
BLUF: If you want a national defense posture, you keep our bases throughout the world.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I'm sure you know a bunch of National War College types and CGSC plus the PhD instructors throughout both who would laugh at pulling in all the tentacles to fell safe.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top