Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
Army reduced to pre-World War II low
Page <<first <prev 3 of 12 next> last>>
Feb 25, 2014 08:19:28   #
mikedidi46 Loc: WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
 
Treepusher wrote:
Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. It was never the strongest kid on the block who got wedgies...


But sympathizers always feel that everyone will get along. I want to get along also, but my Remington and Glock will be at my side always.

Reply
Feb 25, 2014 08:30:36   #
mjmjam Loc: Michigan
 
Seem to remember Clinton balancing the budget off the military and secret service. That didn't turn so well.

Reply
Feb 25, 2014 08:44:05   #
SBW
 
pounder35 wrote:
With the Army reduced to pre-World War II low, we will be set-up for a major overthrow. God Bless the United States of America and damn the Obama administration. I guess the millions of dollars saved in reducing our military, will go to fund more negative action/benefit programs?

Obama admin plans to shrink Army to pre-World War II low
By United Press International February 24, 2014 12:22 pm

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel plans to shrink the U.S. Army to its smallest force since before World War II, Pentagon officials told the New York Times.

The plans, to be laid out in Hagel's first defense budget Monday, call for the entire fleet of Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft to be eliminated, the newspaper said, citing Pentagon officials ahead of Hagel's release of the spending plan.

The twin-engine jet is the only Air Force aircraft designed solely for close air support of ground forces. It was developed in the 1970s to attack Soviet tanks in case of a European invasion -- capabilities the Pentagon deems less relevant today, the Times said.

The proposed budget includes limits on military pay raises, higher fees for military healthcare benefits and less generous military housing allowances, the Wall Street Journal said.

Pentagon officials describe the cuts as a modest and realistic plan to save billions of dollars needed to protect other critical portions of U.S. defense spending, the Journal said.

The proposed changes, which will be subject to congressional approval, are intended to comply with the Bipartisan Budget Act reached by President Barack Obama and Congress, the Times said. That deal, which passed the House Dec. 12 and the Senate Dec. 18, imposes a military spending cap of about $496 billion for the 2015 fiscal year.

The changes, endorsed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are also intended to conform to Obama's pledge to end two costly and exhausting land wars.

A result will be a military capable of defeating any adversary, but too small for prolonged foreign occupations, Pentagon officials told the Times.

"We're still going to have a very significant-sized Army," an official said. "But it's going to be agile. It will be capable. It will be modern. It will be trained."

The Army, which did the most U.S. fighting and had the most casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq, is proposed in Hagel's budget to drop to 440,000 to 450,000 troops, the smallest force since 1940, the Times said.

It was already scheduled to drop to 490,000 troops from a post-Sept. 11, 2001, peak of 570,000.

Money saved by cutting the number of personnel would assure U.S. fighting soldiers would be well trained and supplied with the best weaponry, the officials told the newspaper.

The cuts in housing allowances and other benefits, such as less support for grocery stores that offer discounts to military families, reflect economic realities, the Defense Department said.

"Personnel costs reflect some 50 percent of the Pentagon budget and cannot be exempted in the context of the significant cuts the department is facing," department spokesman Adm. John Kirby told the Journal.

"Secretary Hagel has been clear that, while we do not want to, we ultimately must slow the growth of military pay and compensation," Kirby said.

Hagel's plan calls for a one-year pay freeze for the Defense Department's top military leaders -- a gesture the Journal said was meant to show that even the best-compensated leaders would make sacrifices.
With the Army reduced to pre-World War II low, we ... (show quote)


In case it was a mystery to anyone now you know exactly why obama wanted Hagel (a Republican-so he says) to be Secretary of Defense. It WAS NOT to be bipartisan. That miscreant does not have a bipartisan bone in his feeble body. He wanted Hagel so that he would have political cover when he decided to drastically down size our military. The world for us, today is more dangerous than it has ever been. This naive stupid fool in the White House is going to get not just a few thousand people killed, it will probably end up be tens of millions. That will be a direct result of the misguided policies he and his lemmings are putting in place today. But I am sure when we look back at this critical time 10, 20 or 30 years from now it will somehow be Bush's fault.
Those that pay attention will rue this day.

Reply
 
 
Feb 25, 2014 08:49:41   #
PrinzEugen Loc: Canada
 
pounder35 wrote:
I'd rather spend the money on the military than all of the government hand out programs. :thumbup:


You got that right, the military earn their money not like those bums on welfare

Reply
Feb 25, 2014 09:05:10   #
Schwabo Loc: Florida
 
Black Bart wrote:
Hagel's plan calls for a one-year pay freeze for the Defense Department's top military leaders -- a gesture the Journal said was meant to show that even the best-compensated leaders would make sacrifices.

How much of a cut is congress going to take.


Brilliant. Congress cut should be at least 10% as well as their pension.

Reply
Feb 25, 2014 09:31:18   #
Cragzop Loc: NYC
 
We have met the enemy and he is us.
Pogo

Reply
Feb 25, 2014 09:32:10   #
sr71 Loc: In Col. Juan Seguin Land
 
Oh my good ness we shan't touch the Military Industrial Complex!! That would be sacraligous!!!!!!

Reply
 
 
Feb 25, 2014 09:34:42   #
Patriot66 Loc: Minnesota
 
sr71 wrote:
Oh my good ness we shan't touch the Military Industrial Complex!! That would be sacraligous!!!!!!


Sure then the NSA and Homeland Security can continue the brilliant job they are doing to protect us..

Reply
Feb 25, 2014 09:47:59   #
Billynikon Loc: Atlanta
 
This really got your panties in a wad, didn't it? The actual purpose of the reduction is that we don't need as many men when we are not in the two wars we have been in and the military , like everything else, is becomming more technological and relying less on people. I was an AF pilot and am not really thrilled with the drones which are eliminating what I used to do but they are very effective. Drones are increasingly used by the Navy, they are effective to replace the A10. Aircraft carriers are becomming a large target.

Reply
Feb 25, 2014 10:11:07   #
chienfou Loc: Valley Stream, NY
 
Los-Angeles-Shooter wrote:
Obama is also crippling the Navy. And this is especially troubling with China being so aggressive and rapidly building an enormous blue water Navy.


You know China has only one aircraft carrier and it's a refurbished Soviet carrier.

Reply
Feb 25, 2014 10:47:39   #
One Rude Dawg Loc: Athol, ID
 
Bad move.

Reply
 
 
Feb 25, 2014 11:53:00   #
pounder35 Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"
 
chienfou wrote:
You know China has only one aircraft carrier and it's a refurbished Soviet carrier.


My understanding is there are also no aircraft aboard. They keep screwing around in the Straits of Taiwan and they'll be down to zero. :shock: :lol: We could always give them ours in exchange for part of what we owe them.

Reply
Feb 25, 2014 11:53:40   #
Fred in Boise Loc: Boise, Idaho
 
If you look at Obama's words throughout his political career, this is nothing new. He would do this regardless of the economic situation. He just dislikes America and idiot Hagel is his shill.

NOW, I do believe that we can cut back a great deal on the pentagon budget. It's not the size of the force that deters, it's the EFFECTIVENESS of the force that puts fear into enemies. Lately, we've been good at starting wars and crushing the enemy, but suck at winning the wars and destroying our enemies. Both Bushes and Obama have squandered men, materiel, money, and opportunity.

Stupidity knows no political boundaries. Colin Powell's mantra "if you break it you own it" is insane. Part of warfare is the enemy having to pick-up the pieces. Makes for a very good object lesson. Also, neatly sets both a strategy for winning and for getting out.

Yeah, the cuts could/should be made, but these
are too big and applied in a senseless manner purposely.
Get rid of Obama, his political flunkies and his political generals.

Reply
Feb 25, 2014 11:55:54   #
mikedidi46 Loc: WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
 
Fred in Boise wrote:
If you look at Obama's words throughout his political career, this is nothing new. He would do this regardless of the economic situation. He just dislikes America and idiot Hagel is his shill.

NOW, I do believe that we can cut back a great deal on the pentagon budget. It's not the size of the force that deters, it's the EFFECTIVENESS of the force that puts fear into enemies. Lately, we've been good at starting wars and crushing the enemy, but suck at winning the wars and destroying our enemies. Both Bushes and Obama have squandered men, materiel, money, and opportunity.

Stupidity knows no political boundaries. Colin Powell's mantra "if you break it you own it" is insane. Part of warfare is the enemy having to pick-up the pieces. Makes for a very good object lesson. Also, neatly sets both a strategy for winning and for getting out.

Yeah, the cuts are too big and applied in a most senseless manner. Get rid of Obama, his political flunkies and his political generals.
If you look at Obama's words throughout his politi... (show quote)


We suck when our ROE prevents our troops from actually fighting. We have to follow guidelines that make the enemy laugh

Reply
Feb 25, 2014 12:02:52   #
ole sarg Loc: south florida
 
What nonsense!

He saved heavy industry when he saved the auto industry!

Your ignorance is showing



Los-Angeles-Shooter wrote:
A very perceptive observation. Our mfg and heavy industry has been in decline for decades, a trend which has been deliberately accelerated by the current administration. (Among other actions, he closed down the last lead smelting plant in the US.) Along with the factories, we have also lost the tremendous human resources of skilled workers. It's been pointed out that we probably couldn't make battleships now even if we wanted to, because we don't have the skilled welders and other skilled workers that we had during WWII.
A very perceptive observation. Our mfg and heavy i... (show quote)

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 12 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.