The Adminstration plan to rape - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Bryan G · 02-25-2014, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

the f35 project alone costs $1.5 trillion dollars. cancel that money sucker and spend that money on troops. current troop salaries = $135 billion per year.

Why does the US need 1 million troops? They don't.

Robbie · 02-25-2014, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan G

Why does the US need 1 million troops? They don't.

In case the Soviet Union attacks us in 1955.

crockett · 02-25-2014, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

The way I see it...we were "unprepared" for WW2, but when the time came we mobilized and kicked ass.

The only reason for all this military spending is to make defense contractors rich.

Our military is bigger than the next top ten countries COMBINED. It's pure greed at work.

Nobody is going to invade the United States Of America anytime soon. It's supposed to be "Defense", but once the big defense contractor companies got really involved it has become nothing but free money for them.

And they use FEAR to sell it to the people.

I'm personally sick and tired of all this pre-emptive horseshit in both civilian life right here in the U.S. and our military adventures abroad.

Time to STOP being the world's policeman and take care of our own people.

That's because no politician in today's era will ever vote for a draft in order to go to war. No politician will ever vote to raise taxes in order to pay for those wars.

They know the only way we can continue to run around satisfying the neocons wildest dreams of overthrowing every country in the Middle East is by having a standing army with a big budget. You can bet your ass we would have never gone to Iraq if Bush would of had to stand before the American people and tell them he was reinstating a draft and going to create a war tax...

Every war the US was involved in up until Vietnam was paid for by a war tax. Every major war also required a draft which also stopped with Vietnam. After Vietnam we kept a large standing army and have constantly raised the military budget every year.

I say cut the budgets for standing armies and require a draft and war tax in order to go to war.

dyna mo · 02-25-2014, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan G

Why does the US need 1 million troops? They don't.

I didn't say we did. I did say that the US government does 2 things right and that's make war materials and hire people.

Those are simple facts. The military budget won't ever be cut in any real way. We've been a military industrial complex since ww 2 with the budget going up up up over those last 75 years.

Rochard · 02-25-2014, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell

They should not cut the A10 program, it's very effective.. So much so that they're active dozens of years after their expected EOL. I had the opportunity to meet some of these elite pilots at SelfRidge AFB and was very impressed with the whole program.

Brad

I'm surprised anyone knows what an A10 is really.

I'm reading a book right now called "The Outpost" and they are talking about a firefight where A10s were called in.

theking · 02-25-2014, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Yes, you are nitpicking words.

Let me simplify it down to your level:
BIGGER means we spend more than the next 10 countries COMBINED on our giant death machine of an army.

I'm sure that one of our soldiers equipped with a million dollars worth of high tech gear strapped to him is more deadly than 1000 Chinese soldiers with lesser gear.
And I'm also sure that those $100,000,000 high tech planes and such that we have are probably more deadly than a dozen Chinese planes.

But if you want to play kindergarten games about what "bigger" means and try to hide the FACT that you didn't have a CLUE how much more our military is than anyone else's...then go ahead and try to hide it.

Got bad news for you brother...everyone reading this is thinking that you totally made a fool out of yourself.

I am and always have been aware of spending by us and by other countries. I am and always have been aware of the different strengths of different military's in the world. You simply cannot admit that you made a misinformed statement...end of story sport.

Robbie · 02-25-2014, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

I now realize that you are a poster child for..."This is your brain on drugs."

No, I'm the poster child for "My brain can kick your brain's ass with one arm tied behind it's back"

Robbie · 02-25-2014, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

I am and always have been aware of spending by us and by other countries. I am and always have been aware of the different strengths of different military's in the world. You simply cannot admit that you made a misinformed statement...end of story sport.

You're a clown! LOL!

I'm not sure that you are "aware" of much of anything.

Like I said earlier...why are you even on GFY anyway? You aren't even in this biz anymore. I'd think you'd want to hang out and chat with people that you have something in common with?

Bryan G · 02-25-2014, 04:10 PM

Incase pathfinder does not realize and I'm positive he does not. Traditional wars are a thing of past. This is why iraq and Afghanistan can never be considered victory.

_Richard_ · 02-25-2014, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan G

Incase pathfinder does not realize and I'm positive he does not. Traditional wars are a thing of past. This is why iraq and Afghanistan can never be considered victory.

both of those were more occupations

Bryan G · 02-25-2014, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

both of those were more occupations

That's sort of what I am getting at.

theking · 02-25-2014, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I'm surprised anyone knows what an A10 is really.

I'm reading a book right now called "The Outpost" and they are talking about a firefight where A10s were called in.

I know what they are because I have personally seen them in action.

Robbie · 02-25-2014, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan G

Incase pathfinder does not realize and I'm positive he does not. Traditional wars are a thing of past. This is why iraq and Afghanistan can never be considered victory.

Not only that...but neither Iraq or Afghanistan's armies ever attacked the United States or threatened to invade us in any way.

WE did all of that because they did not OBEY us when we told them what to do.

This is supposed to be America. Our country was meant to stand for some ideals that are important.

Having a giant military and invading countries, occupying countries, overthrowing govt.'s and killing people all over the world are NOT even remotely part of the ideals that this once great nation was founded on.

The pieces of shit politicians and bureaucrats have made us a nation of scared, dependent people who live in fear and think that it's for our "own good" to be searched at airports and eavesdrop on our citizens and build a wall to keep the "evil" Mexicans out of the U.S.

I believe that if George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, or any of the other founding fathers were to meet a person like "theking", they would hang him from a tree for treason.

Rochard · 02-25-2014, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Our military is bigger than the next top ten countries COMBINED. It's pure greed at work.

Did you just pull that number out of a hat?

China has 2.2 million men under arms, where as the US has only 1.4. India, btw, has 1.3 million men under arms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Nobody is going to invade the United States Of America anytime soon. It's supposed to be "Defense", but once the big defense contractor companies got really involved it has become nothing but free money for them.

When was the last time the US was invaded? 1812. (Yeah, Japan landed a small force on some islands in Alaska, but that was not a serious force.)

Who is going to invade us? China? Russia? Iran?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I'm personally sick and tired of all this pre-emptive horseshit in both civilian life right here in the U.S. and our military adventures abroad.

While I agree with you to an extent, but you have to look at the larger picture. It's not like we are pouring money down a hole and not getting anything back from it. We are. Computers, GPS, television... The Internet itself was a DOD project paid for with tax dollar moneys. (We sure got our money's worth there huh?)

We do need to pull back. We don't need all of these forces in Europe, Korea.... In the event we need to, the US can have boots on the ground in force pretty quickly anywhere in the world.

_Richard_ · 02-25-2014, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan G

That's sort of what I am getting at.

occupations are a little different than wars, and why it generally means 'there is never a victory'

theking · 02-25-2014, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

You're a clown! LOL!

I'm not sure that you are "aware" of much of anything.

Like I said earlier...why are you even on GFY anyway? You aren't even in this biz anymore. I'd think you'd want to hang out and chat with people that you have something in common with?

I am the last one standing in my family...when I die the family name dies with me. So I will be the last of a long line of military men going back to the civil war. I have studied military history/wars since I was old enough to read...also at university. I served 12 years in the 82nd Airborne and have seen combat in Grenada...Panama...and Iraq. I also served during desert storm being one of the first 2500 troops sent into Saudi. I have maintained close ties with the military since I was medically discharged in '92...and I am still in contact with a few who are still serving.

There is little if anything you can educate me about the military...thank you very much. You are now dismissed...sport.

crockett · 02-25-2014, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Not only that...but neither Iraq or Afghanistan's armies ever attacked the United States or threatened to invade us in any way.

WE did all of that because they did not OBEY us when we told them what to do.

This is supposed to be America. Our country was meant to stand for some ideals that are important.

Having a giant military and invading countries, occupying countries, overthrowing govt.'s and killing people all over the world are NOT even remotely part of the ideals that this once great nation was founded on.

The pieces of shit politicians and bureaucrats have made us a nation of scared, dependent people who live in fear and think that it's for our "own good" to be searched at airports and eavesdrop on our citizens and build a wall to keep the "evil" Mexicans out of the U.S.

I believe that if George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, or any of the other founding fathers were to meet a person like "theking", they would hang him from a tree for treason.

Actually... In 1854 the United States first used gunboat diplomacy with Japan. Five US ships sailed into Tokyo Bay and blocked the port until Japan opened two of their ports to trade with the US. We have a long history of big stick diplomacy and dollar diplomacy. It didn't start in the last 50 years.

Also most wars this country have been in we were not attacked first.

Robbie · 02-25-2014, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

I am the last one standing in my family...when I die the family name dies with me.

Maybe you should get a girlfriend and think about having a kid?

_Richard_ · 02-25-2014, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Maybe you should get a girlfriend and think about having a kid?

he would, but it's more dramatic this way

Bryan G · 02-25-2014, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

occupations are a little different than wars, and why it generally means 'there is never a victory'

Thanks for the clarification Richard. Please go back to thinking you are better than everyone. Its not a good characteristic pal.

dyna mo · 02-25-2014, 04:35 PM

It took the US almost 2 years to fully mobilize AFTER Pearl Harbor, and that's after the lend-lease act was in place and things were geared up. It's unrealistic to think the US can mobilize in a reasonable amount of time to react to hostilities as quickly as things would ramp up in today's warfare. Thank fully in those days, radar and such was brand new nobody knew where anybody was in the Pacific until they were spotted, that slowed things down. ANd the Japanese never intended an invasion, they only wanted to eradicate our Pacific fleet.

theking · 02-25-2014, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

It took the US almost 2 years to fully mobilize AFTER Pearl Harbor, and that's after the lend-lease act was in place and things were geared up. It's unrealistic to think the US can mobilize in a reasonable amount of time to react to hostilities as quickly as things would ramp up in today's warfare. Thank fully in those days, radar and such was brand new nobody knew where anybody was in the Pacific until they were spotted, that slowed things down. ANd the Japanese never intended an invasion, they only wanted to eradicate our Pacific fleet.

Actually they only wanted to set us back from establishing a naval blockade against them long enough to consolidate their positions in their other conflicts...and then intended to sue us for peace. You know what they say about the best of laid plans.

Robbie · 02-25-2014, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Actually... In 1854 the United States first used gunboat diplomacy with Japan. Five US ships sailed into Tokyo Bay and blocked the port until Japan opened two of their ports to trade with the US. We have a long history of big stick diplomacy and dollar diplomacy. It didn't start in the last 50 years.

Also most wars this country have been in we were not attacked first.

You're right.
At the time the Whaling industry needed Japanese ports to refuel while they slaughtered whales (ironic now that Japan is the whaling country).

So Pres. Fillmore sent Commander Perry in and threatened the Japanese with bombarding their cities if they didn't sign a "friendship" agreement with us.

It wasn't really a "blockade" because the Japanese only had sailing ships and thought the U.S. Steam ships were "dragons". lol

By the way, Pres. Fillmore is constantly ranked in the bottom 10 of all U.S. Presidents. He only was President because Pres. Taylor died and he took over. His whole Presidency was scandal after scandal.

So I guess you could say that was an early example of the U.S. govt. using the military to bully another country and force them to obey.

It doesn't mean that the true IDEALS of which this country were founded in 1776 are part of that nonsense.

There are always BAD people in this world. And Fillmore was one of them.

At least back then, it seemed that there was some semblance of restraint. The govt. would get "cleaned up" for a while before the next would-be tyrant stepped in.

But goddamn...it seems that NOW, it just never ends.
We just openly invade any country we want to (as long as they don't have a military that can actually fight back), and then we occupy them for as long as we want to.

dyna mo · 02-25-2014, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

Actually they only wanted to set us back long enough to consolidate their positions in their other conflicts...and then intended to sue us for peace. You know what they say about the best of laid plans.

They wanted and needed complete control of the pacific to fullfull their plans of conquest. The only thing that stood in their way was our Pacific fleet, they knew that.

_Richard_ · 02-25-2014, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan G

Thanks for the clarification Richard. Please go back to thinking you are better than everyone. Its not a good characteristic pal.

thank god i don't have it

it's definitely not a good characteristic walking around thinking everyone thinks they're better than you.

dafuq man

crockett · 02-25-2014, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

You're right.
At the time the Whaling industry needed Japanese ports to refuel while they slaughtered whales (ironic now that Japan is the whaling country).

So Pres. Fillmore sent Commander Perry in and threatened the Japanese with bombarding their cities if they didn't sign a "friendship" agreement with us.

It wasn't really a "blockade" because the Japanese only had sailing ships and thought the U.S. Steam ships were "dragons". lol

By the way, Pres. Fillmore is constantly ranked in the bottom 10 of all U.S. Presidents. He only was President because Pres. Taylor died and he took over. His whole Presidency was scandal after scandal.

So I guess you could say that was an early example of the U.S. govt. using the military to bully another country and force them to obey.

It doesn't mean that the true IDEALS of which this country were founded in 1776 are part of that nonsense.

There are always BAD people in this world. And Fillmore was one of them.

At least back then, it seemed that there was some semblance of restraint. The govt. would get "cleaned up" for a while before the next would-be tyrant stepped in.

But goddamn...it seems that NOW, it just never ends.
We just openly invade any country we want to (as long as they don't have a military that can actually fight back), and then we occupy them for as long as we want to.

I think it's just that now we hear about it. Our govt hasn't been that nice around the world for a very long time. It's just before the things we did were usually kept quiet. Now it's pretty much impossible to keep anything quiet so we hear about everything,

theking · 02-25-2014, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

They wanted and needed complete control of the pacific to fullfull their plans of conquest. The only thing that stood in their way was our Pacific fleet, they knew that.

You are correct but you are leaving out the fact that we had demanded Japan cease and desist from their would be conquests or we would establish a naval blockade...and that is the reason they attacked us at Perl Harbor. They knew that we would recover but they hoped to consolidate their conquests before we recovered and then they intended to sue for peace.

GregE · 02-25-2014, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan G

Why does the US need 1 million troops? They don't.

A good case can be made that the US needs 1 million newly unemployed dumped into it's current job market even less.

A lot less.

Bryan G · 02-25-2014, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

thank god i don't have it

it's definitely not a good characteristic walking around thinking everyone thinks they're better than you.

dafuq man

That's how you come across

BTW I am not just talking about this thread.

_Richard_ · 02-25-2014, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan G

That's how you come across

BTW I am not just talking about this thread.

sounds good, Bryan, and duly noted.

ill be sure to look out for peoples feelings a little more.

kane · 02-25-2014, 05:32 PM

To me actual physical size of an military is not a solid way to measure its ability to act.

Sure, China has a lot more foot soldiers than we do. How are they going to get to us? They have 1 aircraft carrier and about 400 aircraft in their navy. We have 10 aircraft carriers and over 2,500 aircraft. Our air force is roughly twice as big as their and significantly more technologically advanced.

The US has 10 active aircraft carries with 2 in reserve and 3 being built. The rest of the world total has 12 among them.

You can have all soldiers in the world, but if you can't transport them to the battle they are not going to be of much use to you.

dyna mo · 02-25-2014, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

To me actual physical size of an military is not a solid way to measure its ability to act.

Sure, China has a lot more foot soldiers than we do. How are they going to get to us? They have 1 aircraft carrier and about 400 aircraft in their navy. We have 10 aircraft carriers and over 2,500 aircraft. Our air force is roughly twice as big as their and significantly more technologically advanced.

The US has 10 active aircraft carries with 2 in reserve and 3 being built. The rest of the world total has 12 among them.

You can have all soldiers in the world, but if you can't transport them to the battle they are not going to be of much use to you.

China's not an adversary and never has been. We've been allied with CHina since before ww2, ~80 years. That point is multiplied by us being one of their top2 customers for merchandise.

kane · 02-25-2014, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

China's not an adversary and never has been. We've been allied with CHina since before ww2, ~80 years. That point is multiplied by us being one of their top2 customers for merchandise.

Exactly. They the rely too heavily on us for their economy. They aren't about to risk losing that.

I think people worry that at some point the economic relationship could sour and cause us to become enemies. If that were to happen their military strength then could become an issue.

Matt 26z · 02-25-2014, 06:35 PM

$17,416,243,885,462

We can't afford a war, so why pay to have the military immediately available for a war?

dyna mo · 02-25-2014, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Exactly. They the rely too heavily on us for their economy. They aren't about to risk losing that.

I think people worry that at some point the economic relationship could sour and cause us to become enemies. If that were to happen their military strength then could become an issue.

It would have to sour to the point that all that debt is completely devalued. You only need to look to the debt markets to see it has tremendous value. So China would lose a primary trade partner, all that debt asset and then try to float a twirpy fleet across 7000 miles of ocean to take on the USA.

Not bloody likely!

MaDalton · 02-25-2014, 06:42 PM

no one is going to send any troops (besides eventual peace keeping missions) anywhere in the future - unless you desperately need a reason to justify your spendings

Robbie · 02-25-2014, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

desperately need a reason to justify your spendings

BINGO!

That's why we invaded and occupied 2 countries!

That's why we NEEDED something to be afraid of after the "Cold War" was over. Too much money at stake.

kane · 02-25-2014, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

BINGO!

That's why we invaded and occupied 2 countries!

That's why we NEEDED something to be afraid of after the "Cold War" was over. Too much money at stake.

Yep. There is so much money in play that now the military has become a "too big to fail" kind of thing.

If people complain about spending too much money on the military then they close a base others will complain that now there are huge numbers of people without jobs.

I believe we can have a streamlined, highly effective military without having to spend 25% of the budget on it.

The biggest, best military in the world does you no good if your country collapses under the weight of supporting it.

theking · 02-25-2014, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

To me actual physical size of an military is not a solid way to measure its ability to act.

Sure, China has a lot more foot soldiers than we do. How are they going to get to us? They have 1 aircraft carrier and about 400 aircraft in their navy. We have 10 aircraft carriers and over 2,500 aircraft. Our air force is roughly twice as big as their and significantly more technologically advanced.

The US has 10 active aircraft carries with 2 in reserve and 3 being built. The rest of the world total has 12 among them.

You can have all soldiers in the world, but if you can't transport them to the battle they are not going to be of much use to you.

That is one reason that I made the statement...at this point in time no military has the capability of invading us. No military has the air power or sea power to launch an invasion of us. We are the only country that has the power to reach out and touch any country we choose.

Rochard · 02-25-2014, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

To me actual physical size of an military is not a solid way to measure its ability to act.

Sure, China has a lot more foot soldiers than we do. How are they going to get to us? They have 1 aircraft carrier and about 400 aircraft in their navy. We have 10 aircraft carriers and over 2,500 aircraft. Our air force is roughly twice as big as their and significantly more technologically advanced.

The US has 10 active aircraft carries with 2 in reserve and 3 being built. The rest of the world total has 12 among them.

You can have all soldiers in the world, but if you can't transport them to the battle they are not going to be of much use to you.

China has the right frame of mind really. Their military is primarily for defense, not offense. They do not have a "blue water navy" and cannot project power outside of their borders.

Rochard · 02-25-2014, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

$17,416,243,885,462

We can't afford a war, so why pay to have the military immediately available for a war?

Because if we aren't prepared and we are attacked it will cost us a lot more...

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 02-25-2014, 09:17 PM

Quote:

At the height of the Iraq war, U.S. spending was above half of all the world?s military spending, but is now down to slightly above 40% of all military spending.

Read more: Comparing Defense Budgets, Apples to Apples | TIME.com http://nation.time.com/2012/09/25/co...#ixzz2uOlat7Au

Time to turn some swords into ploughshares...

ADG

Robbie · 02-25-2014, 10:32 PM

I'm sure that theking knows better than General Eisenhower ever did.

dyna mo · 02-25-2014, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

ADG

Cool meme, but taken out of context. Let's look at the real Eisenhower:

Quote:

Everyone knows that, in his Farewell Address, Eisenhower warned about the military-industrial complex (MIC). But few recall the words that immediately followed:

"We recognize the imperative need for this development [of the MIC]. ... Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action," because the danger of the communist foe, "a community of dreadful fear and hate[,] ... promises to be of indefinite duration."

years of research and writing three books on Ike, I think it's time to see the real Eisenhower stand up. The president who planned to fight and win a nuclear war, saying "he would rather be atomized than communized," reminds us how dangerous the cold war era really was, how much our leaders will put us all at risk in the name of "national security," and how easily they can mask their intentions behind benign images.From first to last, Eisenhower was a confirmed cold warrior. Years before he became president, while he was publicly promoting cooperation with the Soviet Union, he wrote in his diary: "Russia is definitely out to communize the world....Now we face a battle to extinction."

Eisenhower signed NSC 5810/1, which made it official U.S. policy to treat nuclear weapons "as conventional weapons; and to use them whenever required to achieve national objectives." "The only sensible thing for us to do was to put all our resources into our hydrogen bombs," he told the NSC. He found it "frustrating not to have plans to use nuclear weapons generally accepted." He and his Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, were "in complete agreement that somehow or other the taboos which surround the use of atomic weapons would have to be destroyed."

(Historians long ago debunked the popular image of Dulles as the hard-line cold warrior who was really in charge and undermined a peace-seeking president. Dulles acknowledged that Eisenhower called the shots. The president himself wrote the famous words in a Dulles speech pledging the U.S. to "massive retaliation.")

For Eisenhower, the point of amassing a huge nuclear arsenal was not to deter war but to win it. This was enshrined as official policy in NSC 5810/1: "The United States must make clear its determination to prevail if general war occurs." The only meaningful war aim, he told the NSC, was "to achieve a victory." He described his war plan as "Hit the guy fast with all you've got if he jumps on you"; "hit 'em ... with everything in the bucket."

By 1957, the president announced publicly that he would use nuclear forces in some "future small war." NSC 5810/1 made it official policy to use nuclear weapons to "deter limited aggression" as well as a full-scale Soviet attack. At various times, Eisenhower considered plans for using nuclear weapons in Korea, Vietnam, China, Germany, Yugoslavia, and elsewhere.

The crux of Eisenhower's strategy for victory was to strike first. "Shoot your enemy before he shoots you," he insisted. That became official, albeit implicit, policy in NSC 5904/1, "U.S. Policy in the Event of War," which assumed the possibility of a preemptive response to an impending Soviet attack. In a "real" emergency, the president expected to launch an "all-out" nuclear war without consulting Congress.

In 1959, when he was well aware that a nuclear war would kill 100 million or more Americans, he still approved NSC 5904/1

Robbie · 02-25-2014, 11:24 PM

And I think that history showed that the "communist threat" was greatly exaggerated.

Vietnam was a completely stupid ass war. And when the Soviet Union finally fell apart, I read that our so-called "intelligence community" was astounded at how backward and far behind us they were in every way militarily.

Communism was the boogey man to build the giant military machine to make defense contractors insanely wealthy (at taxpayer expense).

Once it was revealed that communism was a bunch of nothing...the defense industry needed a new monster to scare us dumbass citizens with.

A dozen goatherders with box cutters fit the bill. And they were actually able to convince us that it requires all of us to be searched in airports, a huge military buildup, AND invading 2 countries with countless people killed in order to respond to this horrible threat.

dyna mo · 02-25-2014, 11:34 PM

I just finished watching a documentary on the biggest bomb ever made, it was called the Tsar bomb, 50 megatons, Kruschev ordered it built to send a message in retort to Eisenhower's nuclear build up

Actual photo of detonation

Here's the pdf of the declassified top secret document President Eisenhower had drafted and he signed in which

Quote:

Allowed Secretary of Defense and subsequently ranking commanders, including military officers, to order nuclear retaliation in emergency .

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key...delegation.pdf

theking · 02-26-2014, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Cool meme, but taken out of context. Let's look at the real Eisenhower:

Taken out if context indeed.

tony286 · 02-26-2014, 08:46 AM

[QUOTE=Rochard;19995754]Did you just pull that number out of a hat?

China has 2.2 million men under arms, where as the US has only 1.4. India, btw, has 1.3 million men under arms.

He meant spending on military. We blow them all away and I agree with Robbie, its fucking nuts.

Rochard · 02-26-2014, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

I just finished watching a documentary on the biggest bomb ever made, it was called the Tsar bomb, 50 megatons, Kruschev ordered it built to send a message in retort to Eisenhower's nuclear build up

Actual photo of detonation

Here's the pdf of the declassified top secret document President Eisenhower had drafted and he signed in which

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key...delegation.pdf

Interesting reading, isn't it?

theking · 02-26-2014, 09:24 AM

[QUOTE=tony286;19996394]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Did you just pull that number out of a hat?

China has 2.2 million men under arms, where as the US has only 1.4. India, btw, has 1.3 million men under arms.

He meant spending on military. We blow them all away and I agree with Robbie, its fucking nuts.

Yes...that is what he meant to say but as is typical with him...he will not admit that he fucked it up

02-25-2014, 04:10 PM	#59
Bryan G Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 8,338	Incase pathfinder does not realize and I'm positive he does not. Traditional wars are a thing of past. This is why iraq and Afghanistan can never be considered victory. __________________ Bryan skype: bryan.glass3 \| ICQ 302999591

02-25-2014, 06:42 PM	#86
MaDalton I am Amazing Content! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 39,828	no one is going to send any troops (besides eventual peace keeping missions) anywhere in the future - unless you desperately need a reason to justify your spendings __________________ AmazingContent.com - providing only the best content and service since 2003 Monetize your content on Veegaz.com - one of Germanies largest VOD sites Got German traffic? We convert it into money for you! Skype: madalton02826 - Email: oltecconsult [at] gmail [dot] com

02-25-2014, 10:32 PM	#93
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	I'm sure that theking knows better than General Eisenhower ever did. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

02-25-2014, 11:24 PM	#95
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	And I think that history showed that the "communist threat" was greatly exaggerated. Vietnam was a completely stupid ass war. And when the Soviet Union finally fell apart, I read that our so-called "intelligence community" was astounded at how backward and far behind us they were in every way militarily. Communism was the boogey man to build the giant military machine to make defense contractors insanely wealthy (at taxpayer expense). Once it was revealed that communism was a bunch of nothing...the defense industry needed a new monster to scare us dumbass citizens with. A dozen goatherders with box cutters fit the bill. And they were actually able to convince us that it requires all of us to be searched in airports, a huge military buildup, AND invading 2 countries with countless people killed in order to respond to this horrible threat. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

02-25-2014, 04:35 PM	#71
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 65,015	It took the US almost 2 years to fully mobilize AFTER Pearl Harbor, and that's after the lend-lease act was in place and things were geared up. It's unrealistic to think the US can mobilize in a reasonable amount of time to react to hostilities as quickly as things would ramp up in today's warfare. Thank fully in those days, radar and such was brand new nobody knew where anybody was in the Pacific until they were spotted, that slowed things down. ANd the Japanese never intended an invasion, they only wanted to eradicate our Pacific fleet.

02-25-2014, 05:32 PM	#81
kane Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, OR Posts: 20,684	To me actual physical size of an military is not a solid way to measure its ability to act. Sure, China has a lot more foot soldiers than we do. How are they going to get to us? They have 1 aircraft carrier and about 400 aircraft in their navy. We have 10 aircraft carriers and over 2,500 aircraft. Our air force is roughly twice as big as their and significantly more technologically advanced. The US has 10 active aircraft carries with 2 in reserve and 3 being built. The rest of the world total has 12 among them. You can have all soldiers in the world, but if you can't transport them to the battle they are not going to be of much use to you.

02-25-2014, 06:35 PM	#84
Matt 26z So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: ¤ª"˜¨๑۩۞۩๑¨˜"ª¤ Posts: 18,481	$17,416,243,885,462 We can't afford a war, so why pay to have the military immediately available for a war?

02-26-2014, 08:46 AM	#98
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	[QUOTE=Rochard;19995754]Did you just pull that number out of a hat? China has 2.2 million men under arms, where as the US has only 1.4. India, btw, has 1.3 million men under arms. He meant spending on military. We blow them all away and I agree with Robbie, its fucking nuts.