Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level

If they shrink the military will they quit trying to impose our will on every other country in the world? Originally Posted by i'va biggen

A useful stooge following right in line with Obama thinking. If we don't have it then we won't make anyone make us use it. You sound like a wife beater Eva. "Look what you made me do now."


I almost choked at the part where Hagel said that in order to increase readiess and our technological edge we are downsizing the number of personnel (those are men, women, and their families who have sacrificed for this country) in all branches of the military.

While I agree with you the way you worded it, that isn't the point. The point is that we haven't had a functioning government in about 20 years because of the Hatfield McCoy approach both parties have taken to politics. They are actively seeking gridlock as a weapon to hurl at the other side in a stupid attempt to "win" instead of govern.

But until the wackos of boht ends--the Pelosis AND the Cruzes--are thrown out on their asses the inevitable result is a continued shrinkage of the DoD budget.
Originally Posted by Old-T

I wonder why you are blaming the Cruzes when I don't recall him promoting anything like increasing military spending just so he can accuse the democrats of being soft on national defense. Can you enlighten us when he did something like that?

The consequences of a pre-WWII U.S. military *readiness* level manifested:

I lived throught the Carter era when the military was downsized to make the world safe for communism and I was there when the downsizing happened with the fall of the Soviet Empire.

They always make the mistake, just like Hagel said that they are going to do this time, of hollowing out the military. The new guys (and gals) make the least and need the least amount of healthcare, they stay, the Captains and Colonels are not going anywhere so they stay. The people who take the hit are the people who do the heavy lifting when it comes to training and leading. The NCOs and junior officers. You end up with a force like Carter did that couldn't get their ships underway and planes that wouldn't fly. All the middle working types who know the drill, have the training were shown the door. It takes about three years to get a decent military man or woman. Officers don't even get listened to until they make O-3 and the most important enlisted are the E-5s and E-6s who are in the trenches getting it done.

One comment was about us not needing a large because there was no scenario that required it and the next thing they say is there is a scenario where it might be needed but it is unlikely. You want to rest the future of the US on that? Well, obviously you are willing to do exactly that. I wonder if they thought about war with Germany and Japan back in 1936. Some did, and they got booted out or made outcasts until they were needed again.

This sounds like bullshit but we need a top-down review of where our military is, where it's going, and how it has to get there but some professionals and not politicians. They could do this in 60 days (not two years) and present their data to the DC crowd for implimentation.

[QUOTE=JD Barleycorn;1055013884]A useful stooge following right in line with Obama thinking. If we don't have it then we won't make anyone make us use it. You sound like a wife beater Eva. "Look what you made me do now."



Have you lost what little sense you had ? Or you still the playground bully who wants to impose your will on all who do not have the same type of government as we do? What is this "you made me do it BS" ? Like Iraq made Bush invade it.

The armed forces problem is meddling by Congress. They force them to buy systems they don't want or need because it means jobs in their district or they own stock in the company most likely to benefit. Originally Posted by BigLouie

Bingo on that.

But the up side is it does produce jobs that require highly skilled craftsmen, and the military has always been at he forefront of cutting edge technology.

It's like the big Aircraft Carriers and Submarines. We have enough, but they keep building them because we need to keep our Shipbuilding knowledge going. Aside from Naval Vassels, there are no sizeable ships being built in the USA

There should be a happy middle, but as you said, every Congressman wants a piece of the pie in order to buy votes. Waiving the flag and proclaiming "it's all for the troops" pretty well guarantees the deal.

I wonder why you are blaming the Cruzes when I don't recall him promoting anything like increasing military spending just so he can accuse the democrats of being soft on national defense. Can you enlighten us when he did something like that? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You are missing the forest for the tree. My point was that the Pelosi and Curzes both play politics to "win elections" instead of to govern the country reasonably. They both are willing to have a gridlock train wreck if they think it will win their party votes.

I suspect Cruz would sell out the military, his mother, and everything else if he was convinced it would get him elected the first Hispanic surnames tea party prez.

You are missing the forest for the tree. My point was that the Pelosi and Curzes both play politics to "win elections" instead of to govern the country reasonably. They both are willing to have a gridlock train wreck if they think it will win their party votes.

I suspect Cruz would sell out the military, his mother, and everything else if he was convinced it would get him elected the first Hispanic surnames tea party prez. Originally Posted by Old-T

You know Cruz is not a Progressive Democrat or worse a RINO. So why would you say something so stupid?

About 2000 years ago, a group of Roman Citizens were probably sitting around the Forum saying, "in these modern times, being the most powerful Country on Earth, what could possibly happen to us". Originally Posted by Jackie S

Panem et Circenses ("bread and circuses") were all that mattered to the demagogues and the mobs they appeased. How little things have changed. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Uh, yeah, because the U.S.A. in 2014 is just exactly like the Roman Empire, right?

Well, no, we say we aren't an EMPIRE and we profess not to subjugate, occupy and rule many foreign lands. We have large oceans on both sides to protect us from invasion except by those predatory and powerful rulers to the north and south of us in MEXICO and CANADA! Oh woe is us if we have 100,000 less troops for we are doomed.

Oh yeah, and the Roman Empire had to fear nuclear holocaust from the Huns, Carthaginians and the Merovingians. Well, no not really.

So you are right, things have not changed much. Nope, not at all.

You know Cruz is not a Progressive Democrat or worse a RINO. So why would you say something so stupid? Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Because he is a Canadian Communist Cuban sleeper bent on the destruction of America and traditional values. Had you fooled didn't he?

Uh, yeah, because the U.S.A. in 2014 is just exactly like the Roman Empire, right?

Well, no, we say we aren't an EMPIRE and we profess not to subjugate, occupy and rule many foreign lands. We have large oceans on both sides to protect us from invasion except by those predatory and powerful rulers to the north and south of us in MEXICO and CANADA! Oh woe is us if we have 100,000 less troops for we are doomed.

Oh yeah, and the Roman Empire had to fear nuclear holocaust from the Huns, Carthaginians and the Merovingians. Well, no not really.

So you are right, things have not changed much. Nope, not at all. Originally Posted by LordBeaverbrook

"Empire" isn't a necessary prerequisite for distracting the masses with "bread and circuses", austxjr. Just ask Odumbo.

"Empire" isn't a necessary prerequisite for distracting the masses with "bread and circuses", Just ask Odumbo. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No, but your OP was about the military cut not "bread and circuses" so try to stay on topic in your own thread IBH or is that too much to ask?

BTW, I'm sure you would say our social safety net is the "bread" however lacking it might be to distract the masses, but what would the "circuses" be? To my knowledge there is are no entertainment expenditures in the national budget other than House Republican's salaries.

No, but your OP was about the military cut not "bread and circuses" so try to stay on topic in your own thread IBH or is that too much to ask?

BTW, I'm sure you would say our social safety net is the "bread" however lacking it might be to distract the masses, but what would the "circuses" be? To my knowledge there is are no entertainment expenditures in the national budget other than House Republican's salaries.
Originally Posted by LordBeaverbrook

Odumbo is pushing these military cuts to finance his "bread and circuses", austxjr.

The real cost of a pre-WWII U.S. military *readiness* level:

Uh, yeah, because the U.S.A. in 2014 is just exactly like the Roman Empire, right?

Well, no, we say we aren't an EMPIRE and we profess not to subjugate, occupy and rule many foreign lands. We have large oceans on both sides to protect us from invasion except by those predatory and powerful rulers to the north and south of us in MEXICO and CANADA! Oh woe is us if we have 100,000 less troops for we are doomed.

Oh yeah, and the Roman Empire had to fear nuclear holocaust from the Huns, Carthaginians and the Merovingians. Well, no not really.

So you are right, things have not changed much. Nope, not at all. Originally Posted by LordBeaverbrook

BTW, 97 years ago this month: 1917, the British handed a United States ambassador a decoded copy of the Zimmerman Telegram wherein Imperial Germany was trying to enlist Mexico as an ally and wherein Germany encouraged Mexico to invade the American Southwest to keep American troops out of Europe. Just a FYI.