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

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Thanks for your service old timer...

In 1973, the draft ended and the U.S. converted to an All-Volunteer military.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/deplo...afthistory.htm

Oh really, FUCKWAD? REALLY????

Thanks for clearing that up for us, and thanks for YOUR service, you drooling piece of shit.

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

450,000 troops in the US army...do you know how many of those soldiers are rear echelon (primarily non combatants)? No, you don't figure a third will have to be left behind or on the trip to the battlefield. As you say, we could carve up Iraq again. Why do you even bring up Iraq when this has nothing to do with them? Anyway, it will cost more this time. You're one of the coalition that is always talking about the costs of war but then you ignore the cost that comes from downsizing. Today, if Iraq were still the same, it would cost more lives on our side to fight the war. Imagine fighting Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea at the same time. It is very likely to happen. If we committed the bulk of our forces to defending the Ukraine it would be a very good time for China to go after a couple of Japanese islands or parts of the Philippines. Iran could decided to go into Afghanistan to eliminate the US/NATO troops in there before closing the straits of Hormuz. Since we have a psychopath running North Korea he might go after South Korea since we are so engaged. I guess the clueless coalition is very willing to suffer 50% casualites or to just stand by while our friends are eviscerated.

As a Civil War general said, "the best defense is a good offense" and for that offense we need the capability and not the hope of a kinder, gentler world.

I don't understand why we have to fight them all. It is not our duty to start World War 3 on behalf of foreigners.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

.
...conjecture.

Seriously?

Every post you have made in this thread has either been:

1) a lie (trying to say that I implied Mexico would never again behave as in 1917)

2) a conjecture (Chine, Russia and Iran would form an alliance to engage in war with the US)

3) or opinion (pretty much everything you have said regarding military forces).

We have about triple what we would need to beat the next 5 countries combined and STILL you want to spend more.

China's got ONE stealth fighter that they cannot even deploy in large numbers because they don't have the money. Ditto the Russians.

Their navies are a fraction of the size of ours and far behind technologically.

And both of them STILL rely on tanks. Steel coffins on the modern battlefield.

And they hate each other's guts - and have for decades.

And you think they are going to join hands and hook up with Islamic fundamentalists - someone they BOTH regard as threats.

You would drive the country bankrupt and not care, just so long as we could prop up a big military. Sounds like North Korea.

Stupid tranny fuckee asshole.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Seriously?

Every post you have made in this thread has either been:

1) a lie (trying to say that I implied Mexico would never again behave as in 1917) That was your original position, but now that you've conceded the point that Mexico numbers among the theoretically possible enemies for the U.S. we can move on -- especially since the U.S. Army already has a war plan for such a contingency. The Army didn't wait on your ignorant ass to change your mind to make a plan.

2) a conjecture (Chine, Russia and Iran would form an alliance to engage in war with the US) Already a fact. Not conjecture.

3) or opinion (pretty much everything you have said regarding military forces). Here you'd be lying again, especially considering how every substantive example you posted complemented and supported my argument -- NOT yours.

We have about triple what we would need to beat the next 5 countries combined and STILL you want to spend more. That's an outrageous and dangerous lie, and you're a fucking idiot without a single substantive example to support your enormously ignorant POV! Officials privy to the cuts have already admitted reducing troop numbers will probably mean more -- not fewer -- soldiers' lives will be lost in the event of future hostilities.

China's got ONE stealth fighter that they cannot even deploy in large numbers because they don't have the money. The Chinese have a stealth fighter, the J-31, and you were obviously too ignorant and too lazy to read the articles about China's progress on anti-stealth technology and their acquisition of F-35 stealth technology vis–à–vis computer espionage. Ditto the Russians. Ditto the Russians with anti-stealth technology -- read the article. And the Russians have also fielded a stealth fighter: the Sukhoi T-50, you ignorant jackass. Further, the Russians and the Chinese plan to continue the race while your ignorant ass and Odumbo ignorantly think it's time to take a *nap*.

Their navies are a fraction of the size of ours and far behind technologically. You were obviously too ignorant and too lazy to read the article about China's progress on anti-ship missiles, and again, it's not the Russians and Chinese that are talking about taking a *nap*.

And both of them STILL rely on tanks. Steel coffins on the modern battlefield.
U.S. ground victories also depend on tanks, or have you ignorantly already forgotten the tank battles in Operations Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom?

And they hate each other's guts - and have for decades. *And just think about what good friends Churchill, FDR and Stalin were before WWII.*

And you think they are going to join hands and hook up with Islamic fundamentalists - someone they BOTH regard as threats. You really cannot see through those Kool Aid glasses, can you, you ignorant jackass? The connection already exist, and its existence was documented and cited above.

You would drive the country bankrupt and not care, just so long as we could prop up a big military. Sounds like North Korea. Odumbo has no plans to "save" money, jackass. Odumbo wants to cut the military budget and redirect those monies to Odumbocare. You really are an ignorant twit if you think this is about *saving a single red cent*.

Stupid tranny fuckee asshole.There you go again talking badly about your cheap, double-bagger, whoring-sister, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. You really shouldn't call your cheap, double-bagger, whoring-sister a "tranny", you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.

.

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Seriously?

Every post you have made in this thread has either been:

1) a lie (trying to say that I implied Mexico would never again behave as in 1917)

2) a conjecture (Chine, Russia and Iran would form an alliance to engage in war with the US)

3) or opinion (pretty much everything you have said regarding military forces).

We have about triple what we would need to beat the next 5 countries combined and STILL you want to spend more.

If we have triple what we need to beat Russia and China and the next 3 combined, where's your proof?

[Guest032516]

[QUOTE=I B Hankering;1055039520]
Originally Posted by ExNYer Seriously?

Every post you have made in this thread has either been:

1) a lie (trying to say that I implied Mexico would never again behave as in 1917) That was your original position, but now that you've conceded the point that Mexico numbers among the theoretically possible enemies for the U.S. we can move on -- especially since the U.S. Army already has a war plan for such a contingency. The Army didn't wait on your ignorant ass to change your mind to make a plan.

MORE bullshit. That was NOT my original position. I said "as if nothing has change in the last century". You - being semi-illiterate - construed that to mean that Mexico would never have the same attitude again. So, I conceded NOTHING about Mexico being among the possible enemies we have right now.

In 50 years? Who knows? But are you so stupid as to think that we will be invaded by Mexico - even in 50 years? Or by any other country? We have thousands of nuclear weapons. NO ONE is invading us, even if we cut the army in half.

We may not be able to project as much power in the middle east or the rest of the towelhead world, but is that such a ba thing, based on the last decade of experience.

And not being ablt to fight two wars in foreign lands is NOT the same as being vulnerable to attack in the US.

2) a conjecture (Chine, Russia and Iran would form an alliance to engage in war with the US) Already a fact. Not conjecture.

REALLY? We are engaged in war with China, Russia, and Iran? Did CNN and Fox miss it?

3) or opinion (pretty much everything you have said regarding military forces). Here you'd be lying again, especially considering how every substantive example you posted complemented and supported my argument -- NOT yours.

Yeah? Give an example, shit eater.

We have about triple what we would need to beat the next 5 countries combined and STILL you want to spend more. That's an outrageous and dangerous lie, and you're a fucking idiot without a single substantive example to support your enormously ignorant POV! Officials privy to the cuts have already admitted reducing troop numbers will probably mean more -- not fewer -- soldiers' lives will be lost in the event of future hostilities.

Asshole, you've seen the charts of how large and advanced our navy and air force are. The other militaries have large numbers of dated tanks, ships, and aircraft - just like Iraq did. Our military would dust the competition in any conventional war. Our stealth aircraft, drones, and smart bombs would wipe out the competition. Even the Russians conceded that after the Gulf War and since then there military has fallen into even greater disrepair due to lack of money.

China's got ONE stealth fighter that they cannot even deploy in large numbers because they don't have the money. The Chinese have a stealth fighter, the J-31, and you were obviously too ignorant and too lazy to read the articles about China's progress on anti-stealth technology and their acquisition of F-35 stealth technology vis–à–vis computer espionage. Ditto the Russians. Ditto the Russians with anti-stealth technology -- read the article. And the Russians have also fielded a stealth fighter: the Sukhoi T-50, you ignorant jackass. Further, the Russians and the Chinese plan to continue the race while your ignorant ass and Odumbo ignorantly think it's time to take a *nap*.

Douchebag - I said that the Chinese and Russians cannot deploy them in LARGE NUMBERS, they don't have theh money. I didn't say they didn't have any.

Their navies are a fraction of the size of ours and far behind technologically. You were obviously too ignorant and too lazy to read the article about China's progress on anti-ship missiles, and again, it's not the Russians and Chinese that are talking about taking a *nap*.

We have anti-ship missiles, too, jackass. And better ones, too. What is China going to do overcome our missiles? Why do you only look at ONE side of the equation?

And both of them STILL rely on tanks. Steel coffins on the modern battlefield.
U.S. ground victories also depend on tanks, or have you ignorantly already forgotten the tank battles in Operations Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom?

Not nearly to the same extent and we are already moving away from them. The only reason we haven't moved away even faster is that some Congressmen maintaining more Abrams tanks than we need as a jobs program in their districts.

Drones and helicopters with Hell-fire missiles will waste Russian and Chinese armor. And if we keep buying large numbers of main battle tanks, they will do the same to us.

And they hate each other's guts - and have for decades. *And just think about what good friends Churchill, FDR and Stalin were before WWII.*

And you think they are going to join hands and hook up with Islamic fundamentalists - someone they BOTH regard as threats. You really cannot see through those Kool Aid glasses, can you, you ignorant jackass? The connection already exist, and its existence was documented and cited above.

Bullshit. Post the link to their MILITARY ALLIANCE to fight against the US. THAT is what you wrote. BTW, China just THIS WEEKEND had a mass knife attack by Muslim fanatics in Kunming. 27 dead and 134 injured:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/anale...ttack?fsrc=rss

So, please tell me again how China is going to team up with Muslim fanatics.

You would drive the country bankrupt and not care, just so long as we could prop up a big military. Sounds like North Korea. Odumbo has no plans to "save" money, jackass. Odumbo wants to cut the military budget and redirect those monies to Odumbocare. You really are an ignorant twit if you think this is about *saving a single red cent*
[/QUOTE]

YOU have not plan to save money either, if you intend to keep spending at current defense levels.

Any REAL conservative fiscal plan starts with across the board spending cuts - including defense. If you don't think so, then you are just a RINO.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

MORE bullshit. That was NOT my original position. I said "as if nothing has change in the last century". You - being semi-illiterate - construed that to mean that Mexico would never have the same attitude again. So, I conceded NOTHING about Mexico being among the possible enemies we have right now. So, you're again ignorantly restating that it's your ignorant belief that Mexico, should absolutely never-ever be considered -- under any circumstance -- to be a possible foe on a future battlefield? Who died and left you a crystal ball, jackass?

In 50 years? Who knows? But are you so stupid as to think that we will be invaded by Mexico - even in 50 years?
Improbable doesn't equate to impossible, jackass! Or by any other country? We have thousands of nuclear weapons. NO ONE is invading us, even if we cut the army in half. Again, improbable doesn't equate to impossible, jackass!

We may not be able to project as much power in the middle east or the rest of the towelhead world, but is that such a ba thing, based on the last decade of experience. Yeah, and you *claim* you're not a racist jackass.

And not being ablt to fight two wars in foreign lands is NOT the same as being vulnerable to attack in the US.
You're a fucking idiot if you don't know that being shut out of foreign markets would be nearly as destructive to the U.S. as an actual shooting war.

REALLY? We are engaged in war with China, Russia, and Iran? Did CNN and Fox miss it? Fact: China, Russia and Iran have been acting in league against U.S. interests. Russia and China have been supporting Iran with weapons and technology. Plus, here's a historical reminder to consider: from 1918 to 1920 the U.S. and Britain had troops deployed in Russia to put down the Russian Revolution; yet, by 1942 all three states were joined together in the "Grand Alliance" when it came to destroying a common enemy.

Yeah? Give an example, shit eater.
Yeah! They were pointed out to you earlier, jackass. Evidently your lame-ass memory is shorter than your Thumbelina prick.

Douchebag - I said that the Chinese and Russians cannot deploy them in LARGE NUMBERS, they don't have theh money. I didn't say they didn't have any. But you and Odumbo ignorantly propose to squander that advantage while you have the U.S. take a *nap*, jackass.

Not nearly to the same extent and we are already moving away from them. Only because the Afghans fighting in the Hindu Kush had no tanks. When the enemy uses tanks, the U.S. damn well better have tanks too, you ignorant jackass. Another historical reminder: in the waning days of the WWII battle for Stalingrad, Soviet tanks would advance on the fighting positions along the German perimeter where they would park and then reverse their tracks to-and-fro until they crushed the German soldiers beneath in their gory, frozen pre-dug graves. The only reason we haven't moved away even faster is that some Congressmen maintaining more Abrams tanks than we need as a jobs program in their districts. Looky here! Looky here! Odumbo actually does have some "shovel-ready" jobs!

Drones and helicopters with Hell-fire missiles will waste Russian and Chinese armor. The Chinese and Russians have equivalent weapons, and, btw, those "drones" worked so damn well in Benghazi. And if we keep buying large numbers of main battle tanks, they will do the same to us. Certainly will, if you and Odumbo get your way.

Bullshit. Post the link to their MILITARY ALLIANCE to fight against the US. THAT is what you wrote. Already posted the link showing where Iran has turned to China and Russia for support: economic and military. If you were too ignorant to read it when it was posted, then you can go back and find it.

BTW, China just THIS WEEKEND had a mass knife attack by Muslim fanatics in Kunming. 27 dead and 134 injured: Heretofore, the Russians and Chinese have demonstrated that they are political pragmatists; hence, the quaint "moralistic concern" you're hanging your argument on is as worthless as you are ignorant.

So, please tell me again how China is going to team up with Muslim fanatics. Check out the history between China and Vietnam, then explain why your ignorant theory didn't hold true to keep those two nations -- and the U.S.S.R. -- from aligning against the U.S.

YOU have not plan to save money either, if you intend to keep spending at current defense levels.
There are no "savings" in the Odumbo budget -- only redistribution!

Any REAL conservative fiscal plan starts with across the board spending cuts - including defense. If you don't think so, then you are just a RINO. There are no "across the board" cuts in the Odumbo budget -- only redistribution!

.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

.
Originally Posted by ExNYer

MORE bullshit. That was NOT my original position. I said "as if nothing has change in the last century". You - being semi-illiterate - construed that to mean that Mexico would never have the same attitude again. So, I conceded NOTHING about Mexico being among the possible enemies we have right now. So, you're again ignorantly restating that it's your ignorant belief that Mexico, should absolutely never-ever be considered -- under any circumstance -- to be a possible foe on a future battlefield? Who died and left you a crystal ball, jackass?

I am restating NOTHING. You just keep trying to twist my words to mean what you want them to mean so you can pretend to win. I made the simple point that Mexico is not the same now as a century ago. I never said they would never be a threat again. YOU SAID THAT.

But they are not a military threat NOW, so we don't need a big land army to repel them, now do we asshole? And really, as long as we have thousands of nukes, do you really think Mexico or anyone is going to invade us? Answer that question asshole.

In the meantime, let's not pretend Mexico is anything close to an imminent thread and try to save some money, shall we?

In 50 years? Who knows? But are you so stupid as to think that we will be invaded by Mexico - even in 50 years?
Improbable doesn't equate to impossible, jackass! Or by any other country? We have thousands of nuclear weapons. NO ONE is invading us, even if we cut the army in half. Again, improbable doesn't equate to impossible, jackass!

Shit for brains - even if improbable does not equate to impossible, NO ONE makes defense spending decisions based on what is possible. A nation makes realistic decisions based on probable threats and spend accordingly. Otherwise you end up spending trillions on defense and start to bankrupt the county. Sound familiar?

You want to keep an extra 150K troops in the army TODAY so we can MAYBE get in fight with Mexico in 50 YEARS? Really? Don't you think we can increase the size of the army in, say, 45 years, if Mexico starts to get belligerent?

We may not be able to project as much power in the middle east or the rest of the towelhead world, but is that such a ba thing, based on the last decade of experience. Yeah, and you *claim* you're not a racist jackass.

And not being ablt to fight two wars in foreign lands is NOT the same as being vulnerable to attack in the US.
You're a fucking idiot if you don't know that being shut out of foreign markets would be nearly as destructive to the U.S. as an actual shooting war.

If you actually believe that you are dumber than I thought. And I did not think that was possible. Wow, really? A shooting war with China and/or Russia would only be a little more destructive than not being able to trade with China? Who'd a thunk it? Compared to today, we didn't trade much with China in the 1980s, and yet I don't remember that period being all that destructive. We just traded with other countries. Remember, asshole?


REALLY? We are engaged in war with China, Russia, and Iran? Did CNN and Fox miss it? Fact: China, Russia and Iran have been acting in league against U.S. interests. Russia and China have been supporting Iran with weapons and technology. Plus, here's a historical reminder to consider: from 1918 to 1920 the U.S. and Britain had troops deployed in Russia to put down the Russian Revolution; yet, by 1942 all three states were joined together in the "Grand Alliance" when it came to destroying a common enemy.

Acting in league against US interests? That's nice and vague. And that is not what you said above. You said we had to set our defense spending to counter a MILITARY ALLIANCE of Russia, China, and Iran. Trying to change your argument now because you are losing?

And what is the relevance of the US and Britain putting troops in Russia a century ago? Trying to change the subject and look smart?

Yeah? Give an example, shit eater.
Yeah! They were pointed out to you earlier, jackass. Evidently your lame-ass memory is shorter than your Thumbelina prick.

So in other words you CAN'T give an example, so you are deflecting. Tranny fuckee.

Douchebag - I said that the Chinese and Russians cannot deploy them in LARGE NUMBERS, they don't have theh money. I didn't say they didn't have any. But you and Odumbo ignorantly propose to squander that advantage while you have the U.S. take a *nap*, jackass.

Not nearly to the same extent and we are already moving away from them. Only because the Afghans fighting in the Hindu Kush had no tanks. When the enemy uses tanks, the U.S. damn well better have tanks too, you ignorant jackass. Another historical reminder: in the waning days of the WWII battle for Stalingrad, Soviet tanks would advance on the fighting positions along the German perimeter where they would park and then reverse their tracks to-and-fro until they crushed the German soldiers beneath in their gory, frozen pre-dug graves.

More stupid arguments from 70 years ago. Notice your argument about the "waning" days of Stalingrad, when the battle was pretty much over and the Germans had nothing left. Only THEN could the Russians bring the tanks in close. They were useless targets inside of Stalingrad. That is why they were on the "perimeter" until the end.

Again, drones and helicopters firing Hellfire missiles make large formations of main battle tanks obsolete. So let the Russians and Chinese spend more money on tanks and we will spend more money on air mobile assets and wipe them out..

The only reason we haven't moved away even faster is that some Congressmen maintaining more Abrams tanks than we need as a jobs program in their districts. Looky here! Looky here! Odumbo actually does have some "shovel-ready" jobs!

Drones and helicopters with Hell-fire missiles will waste Russian and Chinese armor. The Chinese and Russians have equivalent weapons, and, btw, those "drones" worked so damn well in Benghazi.

Really? Changing the argument again?

Did the terrorists attacking the embassy have tanks? Exactly what is your point? And how long would it have taken to get an armored brigade there in any event? Weeks? Hasn't you argument all along been that we did NOTHING at Benghazi - not that our drones failed? As you and others have argued, we failed to use our naval and airborne forces to react QUICKLY to Benghazi - in a matter of HOURS not WEEKS. Do you thing Ambassador Stevens would have been alive long enough for an Abrams tank to get there?

And the Russians and Chinese do have anti-tank weapons. So why do you want to sink more money into big tanks? Thank you for making my argument.

And if we keep buying large numbers of main battle tanks, they will do the same to us. Certainly will, if you and Odumbo get your way.

Bullshit. Post the link to their MILITARY ALLIANCE to fight against the US. THAT is what you wrote. Already posted the link showing where Iran has turned to China and Russia for support: economic and military. If you were too ignorant to read it when it was posted, then you can go back and find it.

Changing the argument again? Turning to China and Russia "for support" is not the same as forming a military alliance to fight the US. THAT is what you wrote. You want to maintain high defense spending so we can fight Iran, China, and Russia ALL AT ONCE. Now you are backing away from it. Own it, faggot. Of post a link to a military alliance.

BTW, China just THIS WEEKEND had a mass knife attack by Muslim fanatics in Kunming. 27 dead and 134 injured: Heretofore, the Russians and Chinese have demonstrated that they are political pragmatists; hence, the quaint "moralistic concern" you're hanging your argument on is as worthless as you are ignorant.

So, please tell me again how China is going to team up with Muslim fanatics. Check out the history between China and Vietnam, then explain why your ignorant theory didn't hold true to keep those two nations -- and the U.S.S.R. -- from aligning against the U.S.

YOU have not plan to save money either, if you intend to keep spending at current defense levels.
There are no "savings" in the Odumbo budget -- only redistribution!

Any REAL conservative fiscal plan starts with across the board spending cuts - including defense. If you don't think so, then you are just a RINO. There are no "across the board" cuts in the Odumbo budget -- only redistribution!

I am not asking about Obama's budget, I am asking about YOURS. What defense cuts are YOU going to make, Mr. Faux Conservative?

The racist Confederate sympathizer reveals once again he has no actual conservative fiscal principles.

You just have different spending priorities than the Democrats. But you love your government big, don't you?

[Guest032516]

BTW, tranny fuckee, go on record NOW.

What would YOU do in the Ukraine/Crimea mess? Would you put troops into combat against the Russians?

Would you provide weapons to possible future insurgents in Crimea or Ukraine?

Is so, what would you do if Russia retaliates by funneling arms to Al Qaeda and/or Taliban with instructions to use them against US interests?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

BTW, tranny fuckee, go on record NOW. There you go again talking badly about your cheap, double-bagger, whoring-sister, you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass. You really shouldn't call your cheap, double-bagger, whoring-sister a "tranny", you racist, dumb-fuck Yankee jackass.

What would YOU do in the Ukraine/Crimea mess? Russia's claim to Crimea is legitimate. It was only a geopolitical fluke that left Crimea under Ukrainian hegemony when the Soviet Union collapsed. Would you put troops into combat against the Russians? Based on previous input, figure that out for yourself, jackass.

Would you provide weapons to possible future insurgents in Crimea or Ukraine?
Again, based on previous input, figure that out for yourself, jackass.

Is so, what would you do if Russia retaliates by funneling arms to Al Qaeda and/or Taliban with instructions to use them against US interests? Based on previous input, why would Russia retaliate?

.

[Yssup Rider]

what does HDDB mean Corpy?