People that would cut military spending need to ask themselves this

IMO every parent that has military age kids need to ask themselves this question if they want funds to the military cut.

Do you or would you want your son or daughter to go to war with inferior equipment?? Would you want your son or daughter to be flying a fighter that is slower than the enemies plane. Would you want your son or daughter to have a rifle that wont shoot as far as the enemies rifle. I think not!!!!!!!!

Cut big government, not the military. All our lives depend on the military.

 

The only way you can cut the military is to not get involved in fighting wars. You have nukes keeping people away, and that's all that is necessary. This war you talk about cannot be fought with a weak military.

 

Or better yet, would you want your child fighting in a war at all

 

First you must answer a question, why should my son or daughter go to war at all?

The only moral justification for war is to defend your country against attack. The United States has not been the subject of a military invasion since 1812.
The wars we fight today are wars of imperialism to steal wealth from other countries. I do not support any of these wars and do not support the levels of military spending that are bankrupting our country and killing our children, and innocent people worldwide to make profits for psychopathic Wall St. aceholes..

 

My two brothers did in WWII. I am a Viet Nam era vet. My two sons fought in Gulf war One and Gulf war Two. Did I like my sons going to war-----------------no. But being real American Patriots, they themselves decided to join the Navy.

 

We are down to spending about 16% of the federal budget on the military. This is the percentage that was dedicated to it in 1998.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

So if we're going to spend at this level, then we must reduce the numbers of personnel in the military, but it is imperative that we not reduce the quality of equipment or training level. It is also imperative to keep the support and logistical capability at a very high level, even if the numbers of people they're supporting are lower. What we should strive for is for everything to be top-notch and top quality, only smaller in size.

Put another way, I would rather own one brand new Lexus than to be able to say I own 10 cars if those ten cars are old broken down clunkers.

 

Name what "wealth" we have stolen from other countries.

 

All those black guys that were responsible for Watts, Detroit, L.A. and Ferguson riots?

I don't think we can afford any more stolen wealth.

 

Cut the military in HALF! Maybe we won't send our boys and girls to die in far off lands so often. And we will still be completely safe

 

I served in the Army in the middle 70s. My parents had no say in the matter. My son joined the Marines and fought in Iraq once and Afghanistan twice. And believe me, I had no say in the matter. Hard thing for a parent, but I'm proud of him.

 

Are you really that ignorant of our history?

 

Explain why it is imperative we maintain this level of logistical capability.

 

Instead of just calling me ignorant, list the wealth the US has stolen from other countries.

Name calling usually indicates the poster has no valid answer, and is just smoke screening.

 

Probably something like California and Texas, but then, you'd have to ask who Mexico stole it from. Then you've got the indians popping out claiming that it was stolen from them, who stole it from Indian tribes before their tribe stole it...

and somewhere far down the road, there's some grizzly adams character who originally moved there after a particularly expensive divorce settlement, and all he wanted to do was be left alone.

 

I was not calling you ignorant, I was asking about your knowledge of American history.
If your knowledge is limited to what you learned in government schools, then you are missing the vast majority of what you should know.

The history of American imperialism is too long to document here, but some examples have been the Banana Republics were the US overthrew governments in Central and South America to exploit the fruit industries. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...brand/&usg=AFQjCNFil47-pdyQkFmulxkLKoIIG1lOgw The Middle East has long been a victim of interventions by the US to overthrow legitimate governments to instill governments that would allow the exploitation of the oil assets. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...eline/&usg=AFQjCNFhQiEK3GAURQS-sUQIPeBsRiVydQ

The same thing went on in Viet Nam, Indonesia, and West Africa with the rubber industry. Other countries are exploited for rare minerals.

In fact almost anyplace you see conflict throughout the world, and you are told the conflict is political, it is not, it is over some asset that country possesses.

Would you care to see a picture of US soldiers guarding poppy fields in Afghanistan to ensure they are not destroyed by the Taliban? http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...358053&usg=AFQjCNFyhk6vJSvnvGXRqiRHARjtZc4f5A

History and what you are being told by he media are seldom the true story.

 

Your asking the wrong questions.... The real questions you should be asking,

Did a massive military, that costs almost as much as the rest of the world spends combined stop the attack on 9/11?

Why can't the United States ONLY spend TWICE what any other country on the planet spends and not still have the best equipment?

Is spending so much on the military that we can't balance the budget and have to borrow trillions from others to pay for it making our country weaker, not stronger, and giving countries like China a way to destroy the country economically without firing a shot?

When was the last time our military went to war to actually defend a threat to our freedom and liberty? Heck, when was the last time our country went to war and the result was a positive change for the world?

 

You do know that the "massive military" you talk about had been REDUCED in size by about 40% in the decade prior to 9/11?

And you can make a strong argument that the U.S. walking away from Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out led directly to 9/11.

 

I agree. Gut the military so the politicians have to really think thrice before starting a war just to build their street cred with blood spilled by others.

 

We need the military, but we also need much more efficient military spending. It's loaded with unnecessary spending and boondoggles.

 

40%? Are we down to only ten carrier groups? China has one and Russia has one. Cut it in half again

 

Once again that is irrelevant. Because our naval forces are NOT primarily tasked with fighting other naval forces.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

Sounds like we don't need ten carrier groups since china and Russia doesn't need them. Cut away!

 

Do you really think if the military was bigger, it would have stopped 9/11?

So then Reagan is responsible for 9/11. I know he was responsible for 254 Marines being killed in a terrorist attack. But yes, you can also argue our training of Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan directly created Al Qaida which then through blowback attacked us on 9/11.

 

China and Russia practice sea denial. The U.S. practices sea control. Sea Control is far more difficult and resource intensive than simply making use of sea lines of communication (SLOCs) to difficult to economically use.

But the U.S. has no choice given the nature of its economy and overseas commitments but to exercise sea control

You're being so deliberately obtuse that one could argue you are trolling.

 

Of course the US has a choice. Let us practice sea denial. We are wasting billions of dollars. Cut it!