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

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It's funny how you so readily concede that "things change" while implying that because Mexico didn't act in 1917 that that necessarily means Mexico will not take action at any point in the future; thus, reflecting a perpetual, status quo condition of "no change" which is contrary to your stated POV that "things change".

Strawman much?

Did you really just say "...at ANY point in the future?"

So, you think we should use a time line of FOREVER to determine what our defense spending should be?

I didn't imply anything about a PERPETUAL status quo, because such things do not exist, Mr. Strawman.

The point was that whatever threat Mexico might have been nearly a century ago, it certainly is not NOW or in the foreseeable future. But if that begins to change, we will have plenty of time to change our defense spending.

It is not like we will wake up one day and find that Mexico suddenly has a 200 ship Navy, a 600K man army, and a 1000+ plane Air Force.

So, in the meanwhile, let's save some money by making a realistic assessment of threats to our security and spend LESS money accordingly.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Yeah, but you still play with shit...

??????????? What part of my comment are you referring to?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by Old-T

??????????? What part of my comment are you referring to?

Yssup's comment was addressed to IBHankertwat, not you.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Yssup's comment was addressed to IBHankertwat, not you.

Thanks. That I can easily understand (and it should have been obvious).

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

One Zimmerman gets us into war with Germany, another gets us into a race war. Fucking Zimmermans!!!

It was actually the use of unrestricted submarine warfare that brought the U.S. into the war, though the Zimmermann Telegram did serve to enrage the American public to support the war against Germany. It should also be noted, despite being misspelled several times above (by myself, others and the Telegraph), that, unlike George, Arthur Zimmermann spelled his name with two "N's".

Originally Posted by Old-T

Thanks. That I can easily understand (and it should have been obvious).

Poor little Old-Twerp is reduced to seconding insults hurled by other ignorant, lib-retarded jackasses.

BTW, Old-Twerp, if the Zimmermann Telegram was such a hoax, then why is it a U.S. Navy cryptologist published, in 2001, a paper entitled "The Zimmermann Telegram" about the German investigation to find the technological security breech or the German equivalent of a "Snowden" who they could hold responsible for leaking the Zimmermann Telegram to the U.S.? Why is it that this same U.S. Naval cryptologist was able to publish his paper in a journal -- the Cryptologic Quarterly -- produced by the United States' National Security Agency (NSA), an intelligence agency of the U.S. federal government, if the telegram was such a *hoax*, Old-Twerp? How is it that that selfsame U.S. Naval cryptologist can, in a NSA cryptology journal about cryptology: the Cryptologic Quarterly, surmise: "[T]he Germans concluded that their codes had not been broken and attributed the compromise to treason. In fact, they could not have been more wrong, because the truth was that the revelation of the Zimmermann telegram was the greatest cryptologic triumph of the First World War" (p. 43, Cryptologic Quarterly)? How can this be if the Zimmermann Telegram isn't authentic, Old-Twerp?

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info//_fil...n_telegram.pdf

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Strawman much?

Did you really just say "...at ANY point in the future?"

So, you think we should use a time line of FOREVER to determine what our defense spending should be? A realistic assessment of potential enemies now in existence would suffice. Or do you subscribe to the belief that the U.S. should resign itself to the "Benghazi level" of preparedness proffered by Odumbo and Hildabeast?

I didn't imply anything about a PERPETUAL status quo, because such things do not exist. Actually you did, and that's precisely why your POV is so ignorant.

The point was that whatever threat Mexico might have been nearly a century ago, it certainly is not NOW or in the foreseeable future. But if that begins to change, we will have plenty of time to change our defense spending. And you are basing your assumption on how well the U.S. prepared for war against Japan prior to Pearl Harbor -- or how well Odumbo and Hildabeast acted on intelligence to prepare for violence in Benghazi?

It is not like we will wake up one day and find that Mexico suddenly has a 200 ship Navy, a 600K man army, and a 1000+ plane Air Force. The Mexican Army, with reserves already stands at 344,000, and every able bodied male at age 18 is conscripted to serve a minimum of one year in the army unless he volunteers to serve in another branch; hence, Mexico has a vast pool of previously trained men it could draw from in a relatively short time -- unless you're subscribing to some racist theory that Mexicans are innately incapable of being good soldiers!?!

So, in the meanwhile, let's save some money by making a realistic assessment of threats to our security and spend LESS money accordingly. BTW, wouldn't a "realistic assessment" of potential future belligerents include China; which already has an army of 2.5 million(±) including reserves, 470(±) ships and 2,500+ aircraft? Those numbers, btw, *seem* to be greater than the numbers you stated above as a pre-condition for increasing -- not cutting -- readiness.

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Yssup's comment was addressed to IBHankertwat, not you.

You appear to be well versed in dumb-fuck golem speak. Do you list it as a skill on your résumé?



Another example of pre-WWII U.S. *readiness*.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Originally Posted by ExNYer
Strawman much?

Did you really just say "...at ANY point in the future?"

So, you think we should use a time line of FOREVER to determine what our defense spending should be? A realistic assessment of potential enemies now in existence would suffice. Or do you subscribe to the belief that the U.S. should resign itself to the "Benghazi level" of preparedness proffered by Odumbo and Hildabeast?

Trying to put word in my mouth again, Mr. Strawman?

Is "Bengahazi" level - whatever THAT is - really the only option, shithead?

And Benghazi wasn't an issue of preparedness. We had PLENTY of forces to respond. It was an issue of NOT responding in a timely manner as you yourself argued in other threads. Or have you forgotten all of your other lying posts?

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Originally Posted by ExNYer
I didn't imply anything about a PERPETUAL status quo, because such things do not exist. Actually you did, and that's precisely why your POV is so ignorant.

My actual statement was: "As if nothing has changed in the intervening century."

That implies that things DO change or can't you read? You somehow construed that to imply the exact OPPOSITE of what it actually implies.

But then, you lie all the time rather than concede a point, don't you?

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The point was that whatever threat Mexico might have been nearly a century ago, it certainly is not NOW or in the foreseeable future. But if that begins to change, we will have plenty of time to change our defense spending. And you are basing your assumption on how well the U.S. prepared for war against Japan prior to Pearl Harbor -- or how well Odumbo and Hildabeast acted on intelligence to prepare for violence in Benghazi?

Once again, you try to put words in my mouth.

Are those really the ONLY two options, IBHankertwat?

How about this: why don't we base our defense spending on the perceived strength of our potential adversaries?

And you are demonstrating the worthlessness of your POV when you continue to conflate strategic preparedness with tactical preparedness.

The subject of this thread - levels of defense spending, overall troop strength, numbers of ships and aircraft - involve strategic preparedness.

Benghazi was an issue of tactical preparedness - or more precisely, failure to respond. We had all the troops and weapons we needed to respond at Benghazi. We just didn't do so in a timely manner.

But that has NOTHING to do with long-term defense spending. Except in your mind.

It really doesn't matter how many weapons or troops you have if you don't use them.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It is not like we will wake up one day and find that Mexico suddenly has a 200 ship Navy, a 600K man army, and a 1000+ plane Air Force. The Mexican Army, with reserves already stands at 344,000, and every able bodied male at age 18 is conscripted to serve a minimum of one year in the army unless he volunteers to serve in another branch; hence, Mexico has a vast pool of previously trained men it could draw from in a relatively short time -- unless you're subscribing to some racist theory that Mexicans are innately incapable of being good soldiers!?!

Playing the race card now, dirtbag? Have you been taking tips from BJerk? You can't criticize liberals for doing that anymore, got it?

And what do OUR forces stand at if we start to pull in reservists and National Guard units? MILLIONS, right?

So, we also have a vast pool of previously trained men we can draw upon. In fact, they are mostly war veterans - unlike the Mexicans.

And again, you demonstrate the worthlessness of your viewpoint when you simply count numbers of soldiers. The Iraqi army was big, too, and we carved them up in a couple of weeks. Not once, but twice.

So, 340K Mexicans - most with ONE year of training and inferior equipment - aren't going to do shit against our military.

And that assumes they even wanted to. Which they don't.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So, in the meanwhile, let's save some money by making a realistic assessment of threats to our security and spend LESS money accordingly. BTW, wouldn't a "realistic assessment" of potential future belligerents include China; which already has an army of 2.5 million(±) including reserves, 470(±) ships and 2,500+ aircraft? Those numbers, btw, *seem* to be greater than the numbers you stated above as a pre-condition for increasing -- not cutting -- readiness.

Again, you fail to take into consideration the quality of troops and equipment in your assessment. Whatever number of ships they have, they are crap and are no match for our navy. They just built their first aircraft carrier.

This list is from October 2012, so it is still pretty relevant:

http://military-navy-army-airforce.b...-in-world.html

They simply don't have the money to field a navy like ours. They have ZERO cruisers and most of their destroyiner and frigates are older or inferior or both.

And their air force is no better. Their first stealth fighter won't be operational until 2017.

[Jewish Lawyer]

Damn, I wanted to bash you ExNyer, but I can't. I agree with you on this thread.

[LordBeaverbrook]

And I agree with what you posted on this thread too JL. It's getting scary are here now. I'll be expecting harmonic vibrations to destroy the earth if the stupid name calling gens too LOL

Bottom line for me is that I would rather keep the personnel at today's levels and get rid of the almost 50% of the DoD budget that goes to cost overruns on weapons systems (many of them obsolete to today's warfare environment and threats). This could be done by fixing the terrible procurement practices and awful systems engineering standards and project management kept by the military against all internal and external assessments. Unfortunately the lobbying and interests of the defense contractors to sustain their profits virtually guarantees this won't be done. I would do it 10% a year so the companies could diversify into something like infrastructure repair and updates (like smart grid, roads, rail, ports & bridges) that we so desperately need and that would create jobs and stimulate the economy even more. It is a sad situation when around $300 Billion is just wasted each year like that year in and year out.

Barring that troop reductions are good IMHO and it would be best if we did both.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by LordBeaverbrook

Unfortunately the lobbying and interests of the defense contractors to sustain their profits virtually guarantees this won't be done. I would do it 10% a year so the companies could diversify into something like infrastructure repair and updates (like smart grid, roads, rail, ports & bridges) that we so desperately need and that would create jobs and stimulate the economy even more. It is a sad situation when around $300 Billion is just wasted each year like that year in and year out.

I agree with you, but it would take Congress to make those cuts--the same Congress that will never allow them to be made intelligently. And this is an area where both parties definitely close ranks and stand united.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I agree with you, but it would take Congress to make those cuts--the same Congress that will never allow them to be made intelligently. And this is an area where both parties definitely close ranks and stand united.

Exactly right, OldT. The parties are the same on this issue, like they are on most, if not all, of the genuine, serious issues facing the country. And why is that? Because both sides are OWNED lock, stock and barrel by the banks, defense contractors, Wall Street and other war profiteers. If you vote for a Democrat or Republican, you are supporting the Military Industrial Complex.

[JD Barleycorn]

Anyone catch the news today out of the Ukraine? Does anyone still think it is a good idea to reduce our military?

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Anyone catch the news today out of the Ukraine? Does anyone still think it is a good idea to reduce our military?

Yes, and yes.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Trying to put word in my mouth again, Mr. Strawman? You're the dumbass that implied Mexico would never act differently than it did in 1917.

Is "Bengahazi" level - whatever THAT is - really the only option, shithead? "THAT" is the dumb-fuck Odumbo administration -- the dumb asses you helped install in office, jackass! "THAT" is the dumb-fuck Odumbo administration that is currently saying that the "Army is too big" and needs to be reduced. "THAT" is the same dumb-fuck administration that also ruled that the security in Benghazi was too conspicuous and needed to be reduced even as al Qaeda affiliated terrorists lobbed hand grenades into the embassy compound and blew holes in the compound's gates.

And Benghazi wasn't an issue of preparedness. It was an issue of "preparedness", and Odumbo and Hildabeast got caught flat-footed and "unprepared" to deal with the resulting crisis. We had PLENTY of forces to respond. It was an issue of NOT responding in a timely manner as you yourself argued in other threads. Or have you forgotten all of your other lying posts? But you've already stated that your whole argument depends on intelligent leaders making timely and intelligent decisions, i.e., anticipating a problem and meeting it with the necessary level of force!?!

True. The U.S. is a powerful nation with great human and industrial resources, but your notion of "rising for the occasion" depends on intelligent leaders recognizing a problem and properly dealing with it -- and right now that very necessary component to make your argument anything close to sound is noticeably missing. BTW, the liars were Odumbo, Hildabeast, etc., and they still are ... but only fools like you trust their decisions.

My actual statement was: "As if nothing has changed in the intervening century."

That implies that things DO change or can't you read? You somehow construed that to imply the exact OPPOSITE of what it actually implies. You're the still dumb-fuck that implied Mexico would never act differently than it did in 1917.

But then, you lie all the time rather than concede a point, don't you? That's your forte, you deflecting dim-wit.

Once again, you try to put words in my mouth.

Are those really the ONLY two options, IBHankertwat?

How about this: why don't we base our defense spending on the perceived strength of our potential adversaries? A combine of enemies comprising China, Russia and Iran would be a mere start. Even the present force of today -- let alone the smaller force Odumbo proposes -- can't deal with that combine.

And you are demonstrating the worthlessness of your POV when you continue to conflate strategic preparedness with tactical preparedness.

The subject of this thread - levels of defense spending, overall troop strength, numbers of ships and aircraft - involve strategic preparedness.

Benghazi was an issue of tactical preparedness - or more precisely, failure to respond. We had all the troops and weapons we needed to respond at Benghazi. We just didn't do so in a timely manner. The "failure to respond" and pre-deploy assets occurred in the weeks before the actual attack; hence, your whole screwed-up argument that the army can be downsized and then, in a time of need, upgraded to head-off a dire situation fails since it wholly depends on intelligent leaders making timely and intelligent decisions, i.e., anticipating a problem and meeting it with the necessary level of force!!! On this score Odumbo and Hildabeast resoundingly failed, and yet you continue to believe what they say and endorse their fucked-up agenda even after they've demonstrated they are blind, incompetent liars.

But that has NOTHING to do with long-term defense spending. Except in your mind. When you -- YOU -- elect dumbass leaders like Odumbo who willfully ignore overt, hostile attacks because such incidents prove troublesome for their re-election campaign, you are the one who is leaving the United States unprepared; so, it was YOUR mind that led to the incompetent, fucked-up leadership that holds office today, and you now want to double down on stupid.

It really doesn't matter how many weapons or troops you have if you don't use them.

Playing the race card now, dirtbag? Have you been taking tips from BJerk? You can't criticize liberals for doing that anymore, got it?

And what do OUR forces stand at if we start to pull in reservists and National Guard units? MILLIONS, right?

So, we also have a vast pool of previously trained men we can draw upon. In fact, they are mostly war veterans - unlike the Mexicans. Hitler must have had similar thoughts in 1941 when he decided to attack the Soviet Union, after all, his army was thoroughly battle tested in Spain, Poland and France.

And again, you demonstrate the worthlessness of your viewpoint when you simply count numbers of soldiers. The Iraqi army was big, too, and we carved them up in a couple of weeks. Not once, but twice. So you're now proffering as an example to support your POV of "sufficient", how an army larger, and better funded, than the one Odumbo proposes met the security needs of the United States!?!?! Okay!

The success of Operations Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom was predicated on a well trained army -- an army larger than the one you and Odumbo say is necessary -- that was well equipped with modern, cutting-edge weapons and weapons systems.

So, 340K Mexicans - most with ONE year of training and inferior equipment - aren't going to do shit against our military. Per the 1917 incident, the German's were recruiting Mexico as an ally, or did you miss that part? Who insisted or suggested that Mexico would necessarily act alone?

And that assumes they even wanted to. Which they don't. Already offered as an example of shifting alliances and perceived security needs was how, in a couple of decades prior to WWI, former enemies became allies and allies became enemies; so your hypothesis is as ignorant and as it is short sighted.

Again, you fail to take into consideration the quality of troops and equipment in your assessment. Whatever number of ships they have, they are crap and are no match for our navy. They just built their first aircraft carrier. ... a very modern aircraft carrier outfitted with the latest in technical innovations for naval aviation,. Plus, you're ignoring China's anti-ship ballistic missile, the DF-21D , and China's HGV, called WU-14, programs. "The Chinese are 'able to go rapidly with the injection of technology' to get to the point of testing the missile. 'They have different processes that allow them to get to it faster.'”

This list is from October 2012, so it is still pretty relevant:

http://military-navy-army-airforce.b...-in-world.html

They simply don't have the money to field a navy like ours. They have ZERO cruisers and most of their destroyiner and frigates are older or inferior or both. What's relevant is that Odumbo has already cut one aircraft carrier from your example while the Chinese have added one. That's the moral of the Tortoise and the Hare: the Hare is so overconfident of its ability that it wrongly thinks it can lay down and take a nap and still win the race. The moral of that tale is as true today as it was 2,500 years ago when it was written.

And their air force is no better. Their first stealth fighter won't be operational until 2017. The irony is that you cannot see how that factoid doesn't support your POV.

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Damn, I wanted to bash you ExNyer, but I can't. I agree with you on this thread.

It's good that you can see how a well funded, well manned and well equipped U.S. army kicked Saddam Hussein's ass in two Gulf Wars; thus, contributing to Israel's security.

Originally Posted by LordBeaverbrook

And I agree with what you posted on this thread too JL. It's getting scary are here now. I'll be expecting harmonic vibrations to destroy the earth if the stupid name calling gens too LOL

Bottom line for me is that I would rather keep the personnel at today's levels and get rid of the almost 50% of the DoD budget that goes to cost overruns on weapons systems (many of them obsolete to today's warfare environment and threats). This could be done by fixing the terrible procurement practices and awful systems engineering standards and project management kept by the military against all internal and external assessments. Unfortunately the lobbying and interests of the defense contractors to sustain their profits virtually guarantees this won't be done. I would do it 10% a year so the companies could diversify into something like infrastructure repair and updates (like smart grid, roads, rail, ports & bridges) that we so desperately need and that would create jobs and stimulate the economy even more. It is a sad situation when around $300 Billion is just wasted each year like that year in and year out.

Barring that troop reductions are good IMHO and it would be best if we did both.

Not so much for "infrastructure" because Odumbo's proposed cuts in defense funding are being offset by proposed increased funding for Odumbocare. "Po-tweet -- so it goes."

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yes, and yes.

Just the other day I read a story about a "spooked" Brit historian suffering déjà vu over the Ukrainian revolt on the centennial of WWI.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/w...-2014022483941


Another example of pre-WWII U.S. *readiness*.

[Yssup Rider]

Spew much, Corpy?

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Anyone catch the news today out of the Ukraine? Does anyone still think it is a good idea to reduce our military?

hell yes ... you go over there and play big brother you stupid shit