The Adminstration plan to rape - GoFuckYourself.com

theking · 02-25-2014, 07:47 AM

...the military is a major mistake if followed through.

Wellness Cash · 02-25-2014, 07:53 AM

Personally, I'm not so sure it is a mistake. At least not politically.

Military spending has been a huge hot topic for libtards and democrats for years, reducing funding for more antiquated types of military personnel and increasing spending towards the future of military operations, cyber warfare, spec op insertions, etc. seems to be a smart move.

Even if these cuts don't pass muster, the Dems are going to look good to their basecamp and they may even swing some of the Libs to their side as well as some of the more neutral voters.

We know that countries such as China and North Korea have aspirations of attacking through the use of computers both militarily and on a corporate level, so why not decrease the amount of foot soldiers we have while increasing the security for what I am sure we all agree is going to be the future of warfare, drones, cyber attacks, etc.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Rochard · 02-25-2014, 08:08 AM

I was reading about this earlier, and it seems that the dirty little secret of the military is our biggest expense is... Personal, housing, and (gasp!) healthcare. I can only imagine how staggering these expenses must be.

While I have concerns about making the Army any smaller, I question the wisdom behind what we currently have in place - Do we really need large conventional forces in Europe and South Korea? Do we really need so many Army troops to protect the United States mainland, which hasn't been invaded or attacked in how long?

NEW XTC · 02-25-2014, 08:13 AM

I say cut deeper...way way deeper.

dyna mo · 02-25-2014, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

...the military is a major mistake if followed through.

Why do you think so? Fill me in, I'm open.

Barry-xlovecam · 02-25-2014, 08:22 AM

It is probably a negotiating point for the new fiscal budget.

When the GOP House rejects the cuts they get painted as irresponsible spenders. Even worse, when the GOP calls for the cuts to be made in social entitlements spending and not military spending -- Catch22!

The odd thing is this is Hagel's , a "liberal" Republican's, plan -- a Tea Party rejectionist?

theking · 02-25-2014, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Why do you think so? Fill me in, I'm open.

The primary reason is it would mean that we can only field less than a hundred thousand active members of the Combat Arms to confront all possible contingencies this world has to offer. In other words less than a hundred thousand combatants is a ridiculously small number of combatants.

In addition here are other ways to reduce military spending without reducing warm bodies.

dyna mo · 02-25-2014, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

The primary reason is it would mean that we can only field less than a hundred thousand active members of the Combat Arms to confront all possible contingencies this world has to offer. In other words less than a hundred thousand combatants is a ridiculously small number of combatants.

What's the current #? If we're looking at a 5 -1 ratio of supply personal to fighters, if I recall correctly, then the difference is what, 30,000 fighters less? I don't see how this is better than cutting other parts that are clearly hemorraging money.

While I don't agree with cutting military employees, or really military spending, I do have issues with the idea of cutting a-10 program while leaving the f35 project ( and the others like it) intact.

theking · 02-25-2014, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

What's the current #? If we're looking at a 5 -1 ratio of supply personal to fighters, if I recall correctly, then the difference is what, 30,000 fighters less? I don't see how this is better than cutting other parts that are clearly hemorraging money.

While I don't agree with cutting military employees, or really military spending, I do have issues with the idea of cutting a-10 program while leaving the f35 project ( and the others like it) intact.

Well I am of the opinion that the number of warm bodies has been to small for a number of years. We should have a minimum of 1,000,000 active duty now and we only have about 520,000...which they want to reduce to 440-450 thousand.

And yes...even though the A-10 is an old system it is an excellent system for ground support...and given a choice over the F-35 I would keep the A-10 and scrape the F-35.

Brad Mitchell · 02-25-2014, 08:50 AM

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

Jel · 02-25-2014, 08:56 AM

l o f l

dyna mo · 02-25-2014, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

Well I am of the opinion that the number of warm bodies has been to small for a number of years. We should have a minimum of 1,000,000 active duty now and we only have about 520,000...which they want to reduce to 440-450 thousand.

And yes...even though the A-10 is an old system it is an excellent system for ground support...and given a choice over the F-35 I would keep the A-10 and scrape the F-35.

If we could point those bodies in the right direction, I could see 1m military personell making sense.

theking · 02-25-2014, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

If we could point those bodies in the right direction, I could see 1m military personell making sense.

Explain please?

kane · 02-25-2014, 01:08 PM

I'm sure there are plenty of ways to trim the military budget without hurting our effective readiness.

One example happened recently. The army told congress they don't need any more new tanks. The joint chiefs agreed. Congress went ahead and renewed the contract of the company that makes the tanks. So now millions will be spent building tanks that will just sit parked and never get used.

This happened because the company that makes those tanks has good lobbyist and they have plenty of political influence. Not to mention the elected officials from the area where those tank manufacturing plants are sure as hell don't want to go into an election year having shut down a major employer. At this point that plant is nothing more than a government jobs program.

I'm sure that's not the only example. The military, like all branches of government wastes plenty of cash.

_Richard_ · 02-25-2014, 01:43 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

that is a big sign on how crazy these guys are

f35 is a joke.

slapass · 02-25-2014, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

Well I am of the opinion that the number of warm bodies has been to small for a number of years. We should have a minimum of 1,000,000 active duty now and we only have about 520,000...which they want to reduce to 440-450 thousand.

And yes...even though the A-10 is an old system it is an excellent system for ground support...and given a choice over the F-35 I would keep the A-10 and scrape the F-35.

Who would they fight? We spend 40% of the whole worlds budget for military. We are supporting corruption at its worse.

slapass · 02-25-2014, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

I'm sure there are plenty of ways to trim the military budget without hurting our effective readiness.

One example happened recently. The army told congress they don't need any more new tanks. The joint chiefs agreed. Congress went ahead and renewed the contract of the company that makes the tanks. So now millions will be spent building tanks that will just sit parked and never get used.

This happened because the company that makes those tanks has good lobbyist and they have plenty of political influence. Not to mention the elected officials from the area where those tank manufacturing plants are sure as hell don't want to go into an election year having shut down a major employer. At this point that plant is nothing more than a government jobs program.

I'm sure that's not the only example. The military, like all branches of government wastes plenty of cash.

Yep, we need to make some deep cuts and stuff like this will make less sense. If the military higher ups had to choose between tanks they dont want and combat readiness then they would side with the soldiers as it is they dont need to choose.

_Richard_ · 02-25-2014, 02:06 PM

also, how is a reduction of 550k to 450k, 'rape'?

Robbie · 02-25-2014, 02:11 PM

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.

_Richard_ · 02-25-2014, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

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

i suspect you'd have to have a whole new 'boston tea party' all over again.

MaDalton · 02-25-2014, 02:19 PM

seriously - what do you need all this soldiers and equipment for?

_Richard_ · 02-25-2014, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

seriously - what do you need all this soldiers and equipment for?

the problem is the draw down.. lots of unemployed and 'lost money' outta those areas

but socialism is BAAAAD

MaDalton · 02-25-2014, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

the problem is the draw down.. lots of unemployed and 'lost money' outta those areas

but socialism is BAAAAD

saw it first hand in germany - they went down from like 500k to maybe 150k or 200k

no politician wanted them closing down in his home area cause people would blame him for the loss of jobs etc.

its a painful process but when you have a couple of people sitting in Vegas flying drones, you dont need hundreds of thousands of land troops

dyna mo · 02-25-2014, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

Explain please?

I try to view it as reality.

Reality is America was built on being a provider to war(s), it's what we do. We don't necc. do wars good in modern times, we've had some big victories, the war in the Pacific for example. But we can build war machinery and troops up.

The government has also shown it does something else right and that's hire people. They hire a shit ton of people, most of those arehired into the military.

The problem is when we combine those two, it seems some in charge think we have a need to point our huge military somewhere and go attack.

It would be catastrophic to our economy to make any serious cuts into our military spending and to the employment #s, so to avoid that we need to keep those.

But instead of pointing that machine and doing damage, make it so those employed and those tools provide a value. Have those people build infrastructure, supply medicine and food to those around the world that need it. Put fighters in places where they need to be to keep the peace in such a way that we don't gain the ire of the world but the respect.

theking · 02-25-2014, 02:49 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.

"Our military is bigger than the next top ten countries COMBINED."

You are so ignorant of fact that it is laughable.

MaDalton · 02-25-2014, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

"Our military is bigger than the next top ten countries COMBINED."

You are so ignorant of fact that it is laughable.

so - do you want to invade China or Russia?

or do you think that either of them would invade the US?

theking · 02-25-2014, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

so - do you want to invade China or Russia?

or do you think that either of them would invade the US?

I do not want to invade anyone at this point in time...and at this point in time there is not a military on the earth that has the capability to "invade" the U.S.

MaDalton · 02-25-2014, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

I do not want to invade anyone at this point in time...and at this point in time there is not a military on the earth that has the capability to "invading" the U.S.

so why would you want 1 million soldiers...

and who is going to pay for them?

Robbie · 02-25-2014, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

"Our military is bigger than the next top ten countries COMBINED."

You are so ignorant of fact that it is laughable.

Aren't you the guy who heads out to the woods and lives in a tent?
And I'm ignorant?

I know this much: The last time another country invaded the United States Of America was The War Of 1812.

And I know that I'm sick of imperialism and "projecting power" by our federal govt.

YOU might enjoy being a sheep for a bunch of old guys sitting behind desks in Washington, D.C. while they funnel money to their defense contractor cronies...but I'm not.

As for being "ignorant"...I'd say that I know just as much if not more than some guy who thinks he is a ninja warrior because he was in the military.
NewsFlash: Millions of other guys were in the military too. Most of them uneducated and poor. I'm not impressed.

theking · 02-25-2014, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

so why would you want 1 million soldiers...

and who is going to pay for them?

The world is a dangerous place...always has been and will continue to be...in the future. As it has been through out history the strong will survive and the weak will not unless they are protected by the strong.

The same people will pay for our military that has always paid for our military.

MaDalton · 02-25-2014, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

The world is a dangerous place...always has been and will continue to be...in the future. As it has been through out history the strong will survive and the weak will not unless they are protected by the strong.

The same people will pay for our military that has always paid for our military.

Robbie · 02-25-2014, 03:13 PM

I have no idea why "theking" even posts on GFY.

He's not in this industry. Why not go find a survivalist message board to play on?

theking · 02-25-2014, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Aren't you the guy who heads out to the woods and lives in a tent?
And I'm ignorant?

I know this much: The last time another country invaded the United States Of America was The War Of 1812.

And I know that I'm sick of imperialism and "projecting power" by our federal govt.

YOU might enjoy being a sheep for a bunch of old guys sitting behind desks in Washington, D.C. while they funnel money to their defense contractor cronies...but I'm not.

As for being "ignorant"...I'd say that I know just as much if not more than some guy who thinks he is a ninja warrior because he was in the military.
NewsFlash: Millions of other guys were in the military too. Most of them uneducated and poor. I'm not impressed.

"Our military is bigger than the next top ten countries COMBINED."

For you to have made this statement is absolute proof that your are ignorant of fact as the statement is 100% false. So no you do not know as much as me...period.

Robbie · 02-25-2014, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

"Our military is bigger than the next top ten countries COMBINED."

For you to have made this statement is absolute proof that your are ignorant of fact as the statement is 100% false. So no you do not know as much as me...period.

Whatever you say "theking". Below is how much the top 15 countries spend each year on the military. It's in BILLIONS:

1 United States United States 682.0
2 China People's Republic of Chinax 166.0
3 Russia Russiax 90.7
4 United Kingdom United Kingdom 60.8
5 Japan Japan 59.3
6 France France 58.9
7 Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabiay 56.7
8 India India 46.1
9 Germany Germanyx 45.8
10 Italy Italyx 34.0
11 Brazil Brazil 33.1
12 South Korea South Korea 31.7
13 Australia Australia 26.2
14 Canada Canadax 22.5
15 Turkey Turkeyxz 18.2

stoka · 02-25-2014, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

14 Canada Canadax 22.5

why the fuck

Robbie · 02-25-2014, 03:33 PM

To further my point at "theking" and all his grand knowledge:

The U.S. spent 682 BILLION dollars in a year.

The next TEN countries starting with China at number 2 and ending with Brazil at number 11 spent a COMBINED total of: 654 BILLION dollars a year.

Tell me more about how much more informed you are "theking".
You apparently haven't even figured out how to use Google! lol

Here, I looked it up for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

theking · 02-25-2014, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Whatever you say "theking". Below is how much the top 15 countries spend each year on the military. It's in BILLIONS:

1 United States United States 682.0
2 China People's Republic of Chinax 166.0
3 Russia Russiax 90.7
4 United Kingdom United Kingdom 60.8
5 Japan Japan 59.3
6 France France 58.9
7 Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabiay 56.7
8 India India 46.1
9 Germany Germanyx 45.8
10 Italy Italyx 34.0
11 Brazil Brazil 33.1
12 South Korea South Korea 31.7
13 Australia Australia 26.2
14 Canada Canadax 22.5
15 Turkey Turkeyxz 18.2

What does the amount that each country spends on its military have to do with your statement..."Our military is bigger than the next top ten countries COMBINED."

China's military alone has approximately 2,285,000 on active duty. Compared to approximately 1,369,532 for the U.S.

Bryan G · 02-25-2014, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I have no idea why "theking" even posts on GFY.

He's not in this industry. Why not go find a survivalist message board to play on?

You realize he's a proven lying sack of shit right? Pay no mind to his bullshit.

_Richard_ · 02-25-2014, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

I do not want to invade anyone at this point in time...and at this point in time there is not a military on the earth that has the capability to "invade" the U.S.

except for that military itself, eh?

big oil has a free pass, big pharma, big food

all seem like rather important parts to the 'big' military

but no

freedom.

Bryan G · 02-25-2014, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

What does the amount that each country spends on its military have to do with your statement..."Our military is bigger than the next top ten countries COMBINED."

China's military alone has approximately 2,285,000 on active duty. Compared to approximately 1,369,532 for the U.S.

Are you retarded?

theking · 02-25-2014, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

To further my point at "theking" and all his grand knowledge:

The U.S. spent 682 BILLION dollars in a year.

The next TEN countries starting with China at number 2 and ending with Brazil at number 11 spent a COMBINED total of: 654 BILLION dollars a year.

Tell me more about how much more informed you are "theking".
You apparently haven't even figured out how to use Google! lol

Here, I looked it up for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

You cannot educate me about spending...and spending does not have a fucking thing to do with your false statement..."Our military is bigger than the next top ten countries COMBINED."

Robbie · 02-25-2014, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

What does the amount that each country spends on its military have to do with your statement..."Our military is bigger than the next top ten countries COMBINED."

China's military alone has approximately 2,285,000 on active duty. Compared to approximately 1,369,532 for the U.S.

You are counting guys? That's how you are determining the strength of a military?
Really?

"Bigger" doesn't mean how many soldiers you have. This isn't ancient Rome. One nuke and all those soldiers in China are dead.

My whole point is that we are being told to be scared of our own freakin' shadows in this country. Why? To make money for the defense contractors.

It's time to stop being scared of everything. All those fighter planes, nuclear weapons, soldiers in the field, guns, ships, tanks,etc. aren't going to save anybody from the big bad "terrorist" anyway.

And if any country were to actually try to engage the U.S. in an old-fashioned "our army against your army" war...we would quickly mobilize and defend ourselves. As I said: Look at what we did as nation in WW2.

There is absolutely no reason for this country to be at "war" in a perpetual state.

Our founding fathers never wanted it to be this way. It's downright Un-American to keep going around the world killing people with our military and claiming to be "defending freedom" while we're doing it.

It's ALL about the blood money that those companies are making and the Congressmen and Senators who funnel it to them.

Bryan G · 02-25-2014, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

You are counting guys? That's how you are determining the strength of a military?
Really?

"Bigger" doesn't mean how many soldiers you have. This isn't ancient Rome. One nuke and all those soldiers in China are dead.

My whole point is that we are being told to be scared of our own freakin' shadows in this country. Why? To make money for the defense contractors.

It's time to stop being scared of everything. All those fighter planes, nuclear weapons, soldiers in the field, guns, ships, tanks,etc. aren't going to save anybody from the big bad "terrorist" anyway.

And if any country were to actually try to engage the U.S. in an old-fashioned "our army against your army" war...we would quickly mobilize and defend ourselves. As I said: Look at what we did as nation in WW2.

There is absolutely no reason for this country to be at "war" in a perpetual state.

Our founding fathers never wanted it to be this way. It's downright Un-American to keep going around the world killing people with our military and claiming to be "defending freedom" while we're doing it.

It's ALL about the blood money that those companies are making and the Congressmen and Senators who funnel it to them.

Like I said, he's a fucking retard.

Bryan G · 02-25-2014, 03:49 PM

I'd love to know how pathfinder thinks the government can DOUBLE the current Military and afford it when the USA is up shits creak without a paddle.

theking · 02-25-2014, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

You are counting guys? That's how you are determining the strength of a military?
Really?

"Bigger" doesn't mean how many soldiers you have. This isn't ancient Rome. One nuke and all those soldiers in China are dead.

My whole point is that we are being told to be scared of our own freakin' shadows in this country. Why? To make money for the defense contractors.

It's time to stop being scared of everything. All those fighter planes, nuclear weapons, soldiers in the field, guns, ships, tanks,etc. aren't going to save anybody from the big bad "terrorist" anyway.

And if any country were to actually try to engage the U.S. in an old-fashioned "our army against your army" war...we would quickly mobilize and defend ourselves. As I said: Look at what we did as nation in WW2.

There is absolutely no reason for this country to be at "war" in a perpetual state.

Our founding fathers never wanted it to be this way. It's downright Un-American to keep going around the world killing people with our military and claiming to be "defending freedom" while we're doing it.

It's ALL about the blood money that those companies are making and the Congressmen and Senators who funnel it to them.

Bigger means bigger...and does not determine strength...and I of course know that as I am not ignorant as you are to have made this statement..."Our military is bigger than the next top ten countries COMBINED."

MaDalton · 02-25-2014, 03:53 PM

the worst is that you will have lobbyist that will say equally stupid nonsense but opposed to pathfinder, they have actually influence

Robbie · 02-25-2014, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan G

I'd love to know how pathfinder thinks the government can DOUBLE the current Military and afford it when the USA is up shits creak without a paddle.

Apparently all we need to do is just hire 1 million more soldiers!

It's brilliant really. We can actually cut the military budget at the same time!

Better yet...Fuck it! Let's make the standing PEACETIME army 3 MILLION "strong"!

With our current budget we could pay 3 MILLION soldiers 223 thousand dollars a year each!

We would have the biggest and richest motherfuckin' army in the world!!! HELL YES!

That's all that counts right? How many soldiers we have?

dyna mo · 02-25-2014, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan G

I'd love to know how pathfinder thinks the government can DOUBLE the current Military and afford it when the USA is up shits creak without a paddle.

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.

Robbie · 02-25-2014, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

Bigger means bigger...and does not determine strength...and I of course know that as I am not ignorant as you are to have made this statement..."Our military is bigger than the next top ten countries COMBINED."

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.

theking · 02-25-2014, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Apparently all we need to do is just hire 1 million more soldiers!

It's brilliant really. We can actually cut the military budget at the same time!

Better yet...Fuck it! Let's make the standing PEACETIME army 3 MILLION "strong"!

With our current budget we could pay 3 MILLION soldiers 223 thousand dollars a year each!

We would have the biggest and richest motherfuckin' army in the world!!! HELL YES!

That's all that counts right? How many soldiers we have?

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

02-25-2014, 07:47 AM	#1
theking Nice Kitty Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The good old USA!!! Posts: 21,053	The Adminstration plan to rape ...the military is a major mistake if followed through. __________________ When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me! FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

02-25-2014, 07:53 AM	#2
Wellness Cash Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: Murica Posts: 343	Personally, I'm not so sure it is a mistake. At least not politically. Military spending has been a huge hot topic for libtards and democrats for years, reducing funding for more antiquated types of military personnel and increasing spending towards the future of military operations, cyber warfare, spec op insertions, etc. seems to be a smart move. Even if these cuts don't pass muster, the Dems are going to look good to their basecamp and they may even swing some of the Libs to their side as well as some of the more neutral voters. We know that countries such as China and North Korea have aspirations of attacking through the use of computers both militarily and on a corporate level, so why not decrease the amount of foot soldiers we have while increasing the security for what I am sure we all agree is going to be the future of warfare, drones, cyber attacks, etc. Seems like a no-brainer to me. __________________ Wellness Cash - Launching 2014

02-25-2014, 08:08 AM	#3
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 73,771	I was reading about this earlier, and it seems that the dirty little secret of the military is our biggest expense is... Personal, housing, and (gasp!) healthcare. I can only imagine how staggering these expenses must be. While I have concerns about making the Army any smaller, I question the wisdom behind what we currently have in place - Do we really need large conventional forces in Europe and South Korea? Do we really need so many Army troops to protect the United States mainland, which hasn't been invaded or attacked in how long? __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

02-25-2014, 08:13 AM	#4
NEW XTC Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 738	I say cut deeper...way way deeper. __________________ Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

02-25-2014, 08:22 AM	#6
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	It is probably a negotiating point for the new fiscal budget. When the GOP House rejects the cuts they get painted as irresponsible spenders. Even worse, when the GOP calls for the cuts to be made in social entitlements spending and not military spending -- Catch22! The odd thing is this is Hagel's , a "liberal" Republican's, plan -- a Tea Party rejectionist?

02-25-2014, 08:50 AM	#10
Brad Mitchell Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Southfield, MI Posts: 9,812	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 __________________ President at MojoHost \| brad at mojohost dot com \| Skype MojoHostBrad 71 industry awards for hosting and professional excellence since 1999

02-25-2014, 08:56 AM	#11
Jel Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 6,904	l o f l

02-25-2014, 01:08 PM	#14
kane Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, OR Posts: 20,684	I'm sure there are plenty of ways to trim the military budget without hurting our effective readiness. One example happened recently. The army told congress they don't need any more new tanks. The joint chiefs agreed. Congress went ahead and renewed the contract of the company that makes the tanks. So now millions will be spent building tanks that will just sit parked and never get used. This happened because the company that makes those tanks has good lobbyist and they have plenty of political influence. Not to mention the elected officials from the area where those tank manufacturing plants are sure as hell don't want to go into an election year having shut down a major employer. At this point that plant is nothing more than a government jobs program. I'm sure that's not the only example. The military, like all branches of government wastes plenty of cash.

02-25-2014, 02:06 PM	#18
_Richard_ Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Earth Posts: 30,989	also, how is a reduction of 550k to 450k, 'rape'?

02-25-2014, 02:11 PM	#19
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	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. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

02-25-2014, 02:19 PM	#21
MaDalton I am Amazing Content! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 39,828	seriously - what do you need all this soldiers and equipment for? __________________ 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, 03:13 PM	#32
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	I have no idea why "theking" even posts on GFY. He's not in this industry. Why not go find a survivalist message board to play on? __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

02-25-2014, 03:33 PM	#36
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	To further my point at "theking" and all his grand knowledge: The U.S. spent 682 BILLION dollars in a year. The next TEN countries starting with China at number 2 and ending with Brazil at number 11 spent a COMBINED total of: 654 BILLION dollars a year. Tell me more about how much more informed you are "theking". You apparently haven't even figured out how to use Google! lol Here, I looked it up for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

02-25-2014, 03:49 PM	#44
Bryan G Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 8,338	I'd love to know how pathfinder thinks the government can DOUBLE the current Military and afford it when the USA is up shits creak without a paddle. __________________ Bryan skype: bryan.glass3 \| ICQ 302999591

02-25-2014, 03:53 PM	#46
MaDalton I am Amazing Content! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 39,828	the worst is that you will have lobbyist that will say equally stupid nonsense but opposed to pathfinder, they have actually influence __________________ 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