Learnliberty.org

#2
#2
147742.strip.gif
 
#3
#3
Aside from this reason, another huge reason spending isn't cut is because...well...the voting public doesn't want it either.

Even supposed "conservatives" will whine and moan about spending, debt, and deficits generally but when specific parts of the budget are discussed for cuts (Social Security, Medicare, defense particularly), hell is raised about how those are off limits. It just so happens that those three components make up 63% of the budget.
 
#4
#4
05_never_again said:
Aside from this reason, another huge reason spending isn't cut is because...well...the voting public doesn't want it either.

Even supposed "conservatives" will whine and moan about spending, debt, and deficits generally but when specific parts of the budget are discussed for cuts (Social Security, Medicare, defense particularly), hell is raised about how those are off limits. It just so happens that those three components make up 63% of the budget.
Click to expand...

This.

Get rid of SS, get rid of Medicare (since when does age serve as an entitlement), and reduce the military to a size that is only large enough to directly defend American soil in the continental US plus Alaska and Hawaii.
 
#6
#6
Weezy said:
And then pinch yourself because you're dreaming.


jk.
Click to expand...

That is a dream, but that is a point I hope we get to eventually. Eventually, like 75 years. :p

Practically speaking the ages of eligibility need to be progressively raised and the benefits promised need to be cut. Being the age that I am I would love to stop paying now, because I don't believe I'm going to see the money again anyway, but that won't happen because retirees need my money.
 
#7
#7
therealUT said:
reduce the military to a size that is only large enough to directly defend American soil in the continental US plus Alaska and Hawaii.
Click to expand...

In your opinion what would this size be? Do you think that in the technological, fluid environment that we are in today that we could actually retreat to our borders and "directly defend" them without having some sort of presence elsewhere to properly defend American interests and people? Just curious.
 
#8
#8
OsbourneBROS83 said:
In your opinion what would this size be?
Click to expand...

Seeing as how we were able to decimate the Iraqi Military in a matter of weeks with a force of about 160,000, while at the same time doing our best to limit any civilian casualties and/or collateral damage and fighting mostly non-uniformed force on foreign soil, I would say that we could protect the America mainland with 200,000 Soldiers. I would give another 100,000 as a buffer. We might well need more than 300,000 in a long, sustained campaign to defend American soil, but then, at that time, we can conscript more Soldiers. I am also open to the idea of letting anyone who wants to get paid for three months, complete basic training, and anyone who wants to get paid two weeks out of the year return for annual training -- with no other obligation.

OsbourneBROS83 said:
Do you think that in the technological, fluid environment that we are in today that we could actually retreat to our borders and "directly defend" them without having some sort of presence elsewhere to properly defend American interests and people? Just curious.
Click to expand...

I am not exactly sure what qualifies as 'American interests'. It seems as though this phrase is thrown around quite a bit to denote financial interests of the few; let those few build private armies to fight for their own financial interests, I want no part of it.

So, that said, I think we can confine our military to our borders and at the same time defend America. I would be willing to concede that we need to possess wide-reaching intelligence capabilities; these capabilities should be non-lethal, though and we should not respond with aggression if and when these operatives are compromised.
 
#9
#9
Well wouldnt you say that comparing an offensive battle plan in a country that is about twice the size of Idaho to a defensive battle plan that includes 95,000 miles of Coast line and close to 8,000 miles of land border a little ill-advised? So I dont know if your number is correct but the rationale is not there.

American Interests is a term used since the beginning. So I would imagine that it includes citizen's abroad, American companies, and other entities that are wholly connected to the US. The thought of private companies running around with guns-for-hire makes me cringe. I hope that you honestly do not believe that companies should be able to globe trot and enforce their will economically and militarily on peoples and countries. That adds to the problem and is not a solution.
 
#10
#10
OsbourneBROS83 said:
Well wouldnt you say that comparing an offensive battle plan in a country that is about twice the size of Idaho to a defensive battle plan that includes 95,000 miles of Coast line and close to 8,000 miles of land border a little ill-advised? So I dont know if your number is correct but the rationale is not there.
Click to expand...

I would say that if another nation was to launch an invasion on the United States with a front along the entire Canadian or Mexican border that we would notice the buildup of troops pretty quickly.

We have the naval and air capacities to decimate such a buildup and we would still have such capabilities even if we cut our Navy and our Air Force by 25-30%. The one thing I would like to see our defense industry pay more attention to and develop fully is a missile defense system.

OsbourneBROS83 said:
American Interests is a term used since the beginning. So I would imagine that it includes citizen's abroad, American companies, and other entities that are wholly connected to the US. The thought of private companies running around with guns-for-hire makes me cringe. I hope that you honestly do not believe that companies should be able to globe trot and enforce their will economically and militarily on peoples and countries. That adds to the problem and is not a solution.
Click to expand...

I do not care whether or not companies enforce their will militarily; I would rather them do it themselves staffed with military that understand they are only risking their lives to defend money than ask us to do it under the pretense of maintaining freedom, protecting the Constitution, etc.
 
#11
#11
I should have been more clear I was not implying that there would be some mass build up on the land borders or coast just merely stating facts. It would not take a large buildup. I bet you could get 20-30 guys every 50 miles along the Canadian border. I am just saying that comparing an offensive plan in Iraq does not equate to a defensive plan here.

I should say that cuts in the military should not be out of the realm of possibilities and should even happen, but not on the scale you are referring. What would you do with the influx of hundreds of thousands of vets with no jobs? Talk about unemployment
 
#13
#13
OsbourneBROS83 said:
I should have been more clear I was not implying that there would be some mass build up on the land borders or coast just merely stating facts. It would not take a large buildup. I bet you could get 20-30 guys every 50 miles along the Canadian border. I am just saying that comparing an offensive plan in Iraq does not equate to a defensive plan here.

I should say that cuts in the military should not be out of the realm of possibilities and should even happen, but not on the scale you are referring. What would you do with the influx of hundreds of thousands of vets with no jobs? Talk about unemployment
Click to expand...

It didn't present a problem post-WWII, and we were recovering from a worse economic catastrophe than we are today.

Also, fear of unemployment is a horrible reason to avoid cutting unnecessary public sector jobs.
 
#14
#14
OsbourneBROS83 said:
I should have been more clear I was not implying that there would be some mass build up on the land borders or coast just merely stating facts. It would not take a large buildup. I bet you could get 20-30 guys every 50 miles along the Canadian border. I am just saying that comparing an offensive plan in Iraq does not equate to a defensive plan here.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea of the following:

1. How hard it would be to wage an offensive where half a platoon is operating every fifty miles? The Command and Control element would break down in a heartbeat and lead to absolute chaos. We would be able to decimate such an ill-planned offensive.

2. 20-30 armed Soldiers every 50 miles for 5,000 miles is only a little over 3,300 Soldiers. You do not think we could handle that with 300,000 Soldiers?

3. The long-term logistics of such an offensive operation would be absolutely unsustainable. Upon further reflection, even the short-term logistics would be a mess. Do these 20-30 men have mortars? artillery? armor? What is their basic load for these operations? How much ammo do they need to sustain them for firefights over two days, much less over a week? How much food do they need? Are they going to live off the land? What is the resupply plan? Where is this resupply coming from? Do they have a cas-evac plan? Do they have medics? Are they going to change their clothes? Are they going to wash their clothes? If not, what happens when they get cellulitus? How will they recharge their radios? How many back up batteries will they carry? Will their radios be on an encrypted frequency hop? What is their signal plan to ensure that their radios are not compromised? How are they going to affect this when the nearest unit is fifty miles away? Will they have enough CLP to keep their firearms clean for a week of fighting?

Basically, did you think through this? Or, did you just play Call of Duty and figure that one guy can take out an entire nation provided he is able to toggle through his weapons fast enough?

OsbourneBROS83 said:
I should say that cuts in the military should not be out of the realm of possibilities and should even happen, but not on the scale you are referring. What would you do with the influx of hundreds of thousands of vets with no jobs? Talk about unemployment
Click to expand...

So, we should keep a large force simply as a government jobs program? That is absurd.
 
Last edited:
#15
#15
Its not a jobs program when they are already employed. And neither of you have answered how to employ these individuals. Post WWII there were many more thousands of manufacturing and construction jobs to be had, not so in today's climate.

And another thing...for the last time YOU compared an OFFENSIVE PLAN IN IRAQ to a DEFENSIVE PLAN OF THE US. That is what is absurd
 
#16
#16
Well its obvious that I have a differing view of the future of our military and defense of the homeland. I will not take up anymore undue time or attention to try and get answers for something that you obviously are very passionate and knowledgeable about. That is your right.
 
#17
#17
OsbourneBROS83 said:
Its not a jobs program when they are already employed. And neither of you have answered how to employ these individuals. Post WWII there were many more thousands of manufacturing and construction jobs to be had, not so in today's climate.

And another thing...for the last time YOU compared an OFFENSIVE PLAN IN IRAQ to a DEFENSIVE PLAN OF THE US. That is what is absurd
Click to expand...

It is in practice if they are now unnecessarily employed.
 
#18
#18
OsbourneBROS83 said:
Its not a jobs program when they are already employed. And neither of you have answered how to employ these individuals. Post WWII there were many more thousands of manufacturing and construction jobs to be had, not so in today's climate.
Click to expand...

It is a government jobs program when they are unnecessarily employed by the government. It is not the governments job to ensure that every American is employed. So, some Vets would get jobs; some would be unemployed and might end up homeless. The world is a cruel, cold place.

OsbourneBROS83 said:
And another thing...for the last time YOU compared an OFFENSIVE PLAN IN IRAQ to a DEFENSIVE PLAN OF THE US. That is what is absurd
Click to expand...

I did compare it and it is nowhere near absurd. See what I have done with the post above, I made some modifications while you were apparently typing this post.

We possess the technological superiority to detect a buildup of enemy troops in Canada and/or Mexico. We possess the technological superiority to easily decimate hundreds of thousands of troops storming across our borders, especially when we do not have to dance around taking the fight to them. You give us the Kiowa, the Apache, the F-18, and the C-130 Spectre Gunship and there is not another military in the world that can get past 300,000 American troops ready to meet them at our borders.
 
#19
#19
therealUT said:
We possess the technological superiority to detect a buildup of enemy troops in Canada and/or Mexico. We possess the technological superiority to easily decimate hundreds of thousands of troops storming across our borders, especially when we do not have to dance around taking the fight to them. You give us the Kiowa, the Apache, the F-18, and the C-130 Spectre Gunship and there is not another military in the world that can get past 300,000 American troops ready to meet them at our borders.
Click to expand...

I just got super pumped.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top