Miliitary Spending Increases

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Miliitary Spending Increases

    Republicans only want to shrink the non-military government.  If they were serious about our debt and defecit, they would want to shrink the military too.  But they aren't serious about it, outside of their rhetoric.  An additional $2 trillion for the military?  Seriously?

    Fact is, the military represents a jobs program for the Republican base in the heartland as well as a way for the GOP politicians to wave the flag while trolling for votes among the poorly educated red states where job opportunities are limited due to poor education systems.

    When Republicans aren't aren't lowering taxes to blow up the the national budget, they're exploding the deficit through defense dollars paid military contractors, weapons programs, new unneeded ships, and an endless expansion of military bases around the globe.

    The GOP hasn't been serious about the budget since Ronald Reagan taught impressionable, math-challenged America that deficits don't matter. 

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Miliitary Spending Increases

    If Obama wins he'll try to pocket the "peace dividend" for more entitlement programs and stop the rising debt.  This will leave us with a stagnant military that would be ill equipped for our next military assignment.  This would create false peace dividends like they did during the Clinton years and when we need a modern military to respond to 911 we had an aging war chest with vulnerable unarmored Humves and out of date MRE's.

    Romney wants to ensure that our ships that go under water and that these things that planes land on stay technologically ahead of our enemies.  If it was up to Obama our military would go the way of Lotus and WordPerfect, from first to also ran status.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Miliitary Spending Increases

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    If Obama wins he'll try to pocket the "peace dividend" for more entitlement programs and stop the rising debt.  This will leave us with a stagnant military that would be ill equipped for our next military assignment.  This would create false peace dividends like they did during the Clinton years and when we need a modern military to respond to 911 we had an aging war chest with vulnerable unarmored Humves and out of date MRE's. Romney wants to ensure that our ships that go under water and that these things that planes land on stay technologically ahead of our enemies.  If it was up to Obama our military would go the way of Lotus and WordPerfect, from first to also ran status.




    Geepers what a load of crap.

     

    I just gotta laugh at the wingnuts who regurgitate echo chamber baloney without actually knowing what the fcuk their babbling about.

    Hey spanky, the Humvee was never designed to be an armored vehicle. It is a troop/light cargo transport for service behind enemy lines.

    It was the stupidity of the neo-cons who turned Iraq into a clusterfvck and pressed vehicles into roles they weren't designed for.

    There's a reason the Pentagon spent billions of dollars for M1A2 battle tanks and M3 BFV's, so troop formations don't go into war sitting in a Humvee.

    Ya, it's a wonder how Clinton couldn't predict that the fvcking wingnuts would send troops into a war zone in vehicles that weren't designed for that purpose.

     

    Geepers, bend over and pull your head out.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Um  the neocons weren't in charge

    WTC bombing #1

    Battle of Mogadishu the new urban warfare; similar to Russia's Afghanistan problem

    USS Cole

    Failre to get Bin Laden pre 2000

    Humvees were pressed into roles not intended because we failed to develop urban center modern personnel vehicles, because funding of the military under Clinton took a huge hit.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Miliitary Spending Increases

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    This would create false peace dividends like they did during the Clinton years and when we need a modern military to respond to 911 we had an aging war chest with vulnerable unarmored Humves and out of date MRE's.


    It's one thing for the constituent to cast blame but, for the man to do it, is shameful!!

    Did Bush ever blame Clinton??

    me thinks no.

     

     

    Blame Clinton for Bush failures, then complain about "blame bush" ?

     

    No shame. No honor. No dignity.

    [/QUOTE]


     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Miliitary Spending Increases

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    Humvees were pressed into roles not intended because we failed to develop urban center modern personnel vehicles, because funding of the military under Clinton took a huge hit.

    _------------------________________________________________________

     

     



    Bush began mentioning Iraq within months of 9/11. It was clear he had his sights set on Iraq more than a year in advance of the actual invasion. He could have requested the defense spending he wanted for it.

     

    He didn't. That's understandable. That would have tipped his hand that he wanted us in Iraq one way or another.

     

    That doesn't make it Clinton's fault he threw us into Iraq, ill-equipped for that wild goose chase.

     

    And disbanding the Iraqi army? Pure genius. Oh wait, I mean......   

     

    ...oh well, doesn't matter. Probably Clniton's fault anyway.

     

     

     

     

    "HEY! STOP BLAMING BUSH! STUPID LIBERAL!"

    /yawn

    [/QUOTE]

    Bush year 1 inherited Clinton Budget

    Bush year 1 inherited Clinton's prior two year failure to get Bin Laden

    Note I just mentioned year 1, as Bush owned it after year 1.

    Clinton's peace dividend left the military ill equipped to deal with a middle east ground war in urban centers.  It takes years literally to get the government to respond to new needs which is why it took a couple of years to get armored Humvees and backfit kits available for our troops.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Miliitary Spending Increases

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    [QUOTE] Um  the neocons weren't in charge

    WTC bombing #1

    Battle of Mogadishu the new urban warfare; similar to Russia's Afghanistan problem

    USS Cole

    Failre to get Bin Laden pre 2000

    Humvees were pressed into roles not intended because we failed to develop urban center modern personnel vehicles, because funding of the military under Clinton took a huge hit.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I see you're doubling down on stupidity today.

    Hey numbnuts, the wingnuts were in charge where it mattered, the pocketbook. They could've built ANY weapon they wanted and PotUS couldn't have done zip. I guess you're wilfully ignorant of all the military earmarks like the V22 Osprey or the F22 Raptor.

     

    The Battle of Mogadishu, from a military standpoint, was a success. It was you neo-con idiots who wanted to embarass Clinton who turned it into a political football.

    18 US KIA compared to 500 Somali KIA, nuff said.

     

    Heh, heh, heh, Clinton didn't get binLaden. Wow, you wingnuts have gone all truther... More evidence of your lack of spine than anything else.

     

    And your last quip just shows how much of a freakin ideological imbecile you are.

    Hey spanky, there's a reason the US spent BILLIONS of dollars on M1A2 and M3 armor so US troops didn't go into battles in Humvees.

    Another fact, there is no vehicle in the world developed for MOUT operations or one that is indestructible.

    Rule number one in MOUT; you don't use armor in urban battles. It limits any advantage they have. They can't manuever and their long range weapons effectiveness are limited. They become sitting ducks for handheld anti-tank weapons. And there is no such thing as an indestructible tank. They all have weak spots.

    If the US didn't have the right vehicles to fight a war than how the fcuk do you explain the fact that we've fought Iraq twice with the same vehicles and both times kicked backside with few casualties.

    The fact is that the neo-con wingnuts didn't plan for OCCUPATION. They screwed up the post-war occupation and didn't have enough troops to handle it. The military vehicles performed exactly for the purpose they were intended, which is why so few casualities in the ACTUAL FIGHTING WAR.

    So just quit with your ridiculous bullcrap, it's obvious you're a nose-to-rectum lemming who hasn't a clue about military strategy or equipment.

    [/QUOTE]

    You're right the US wasn't ready for a long term occupation and lacked the appropriate assets, for longterm MOUT and an organized resistance.  The Neocon war chest was empty for the new type of warfare.

    Finally in 2007 MRAP's first started to show up in Iraq.

     

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Miliitary Spending Increases

    I thought Romney didn't want to cut military spending because defense contractors make contributions to his campaign.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Miliitary Spending Increases

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If Obama wins he'll try to pocket the "peace dividend" for more entitlement programs and stop the rising debt.  This will leave us with a stagnant military that would be ill equipped for our next military assignment.  This would create false peace dividends like they did during the Clinton years and when we need a modern military to respond to 911 we had an aging war chest with vulnerable unarmored Humves and out of date MRE's.

    Romney wants to ensure that our ships that go under water and that these things that planes land on stay technologically ahead of our enemies.  If it was up to Obama our military would go the way of Lotus and WordPerfect, from first to also ran status.

    [/QUOTE]


    The HUMVESS weren't intended to be an Urban Assault vehicle (See EM-50 Urban Assault).  And the only reason urban Assault vehicles were needed in Iraq was because of how badly Bush mismanaged the war.  If he'd had half a brain, he would have kept the Iraqi Army intact and used them the keep the peace.  Doubtest manuever ever.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Miliitary Spending Increases

    In response to NO MO O's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I don't remember Bush whinning like a wussy about what he 'inherited' ?

    [/QUOTE]


    Because he inherited a pretty good situation.  Obviously the military was in fine shape - look how easily we defeated the Iraqi Army.  The Economy was softening but at least it wasn't the smoldering pile of rubble that he left behind.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Miliitary Spending Increases

    We spend more in defense spending than the next 17 countries combined. Something is very wrong with that.  We don't need to spend more..we need to spend smarter..and we need to invest more in our men and women in uniform than we do in overpriced defense contractors for equipment we don't need.

     

Share