Obama's Military Cutbacks

Gulp.

To be honest, I didn't know much about this topic until asked to write about it. I watch foreign news reports often, and they tend to not report on U.S. Affairs. The only U.S. News I hear about is what the paper I work for prints, which isn't a lot. So, I had to do some research.

I don't see anything wrong with it. It seems like it is America's time to worry about ourselves, and take a step back. You know, let the other major players step up. Though the government is reducing its military presence and cutting spending, the government is finally doing what the people have been asking for quite a long time. This plan will boost morale in Americans and increase the trust level the citizens have for the government.

This plan brings strength to our own borders, instead of thinning out our already stretched-out military. If the government does this effectively, then it will possibly lead to a surge in enlistment. That way we can one day have a greater military presence throughout the world again.

As for the cutting of the military spending, I feel that it is about time. All across America citizens have to decide what to allocate money to. Do they get full-coverage insurance on their home, or food to feed their family? Do they get the security alarm or repair the car? If we have to make these decisions, then the government should as well.

Though the Republicans are against the idea, I believe that everything will even out in the end. If the plan doesn't work as well as they had hoped, then the people that were against it in the first place will be in the upswing, and the government will change again. Obama has been given four years to make things better; and if the citizenry feel that he failed then they will change who sits in the country's driver seat.

But this is just my own thoughts. I knew very little about it when I started, though I don't claim to have mastered the situation. Anyway, what are your thoughts about it?

In a perfect world, all of the things that you stated will be true. However, this is not a perfect world. I have not done any research on this topic or Obama's views, but let me give you a little insight on what potentially could become of America.

Canada And the US have both decided on these cut backs. One thing I fear more than most things is that America will come out looking like nothing more than a peacekeeping country like Canada. God bless Canada and all, but if anything were to happen to us, we'd be sitting ducks. Our main faucet for military supplies comes from...none other THAN, the Unites States. Places like Canada rely on their military to help ours. If the US were to become a peacekeeping nation, We'd all be done for. (Conspiracy theory alert-You wonder why Obama is trying to get places like Russia and Korea to get rid of their war heads? Hahaha. K. /CT)

What would you think of an All-Volunteer Military force? I wouldn't join that. Myself being a big supporter of the Mil and having friends in the Canadian and American Military. It would kind of makes me look down upon them. What the hell is Obama thinking? Does he think that's seriously going to work? Would people still risk their lives if they're not getting paid? I won't even mention the health care issues with this policy. There are plenty of pissed off military men/women with that one.

You really think he's going down the right path Michael? He's ruining his ****ing country before his term is over. He's even convinced Canada that his plans are a good idea. The military cuts over here could potentially lead to another hiring freeze (They should have already imo), but I don't think a place like America can afford something like that. Not to mention that third world countries still need military assistance. The US military isn't just there to fight. They are there to help.

As a side note, Obama has agreed to not run for the next election. What does that tell you?

Let me first just point out that I was asked to write in favor of the policy. What I actually think does not matter in this situation. What my personal opinions of the current government's decisions makes no difference in what I was asked to do. I am going to do my best to state the case of those in favor of the topic. With that said, I will now respond.

R.Kyra, Paragraph #3:
An All-Volunteer Military force may mean a smaller enlistment number, but it weeds out those trying to make a quick buck. The ones who still want to protect the country would be doing it because they care about the safety of the country, and not for monetary gain. As I do not know President Obama personally, there isn't any way that I can answer your question as to what he is thinking by him doing what he is doing. I would hope that he strongly believes that the policy will work, and therefore puts as strong an effort in making it work.

R.Kyra, Paragraphs #4 and #5:
As I said in the beginning of this post, what I believe doesn't really matter because I was asked to write in favor of the policy. As such, I have to agree that the policy is a good idea (though my personal opinion may or may not be the same). I do agree with you that the military is in certain places to help instead of fight. But all I have read is that the policy lessens the military presence throughout the world, not completely eliminates it. And as for Obama not running for re-election, I did read that. However, the sites where I read it said that they were just joking when they wrote that he wasn't running. I have also read that he is just now officially running for re-election. Regardless, whether or not he is running should probably be best discussed in another thread.

Perhaps Obama should spend more time cutting domestic spending and less time attacking our troops (and our allies for that matter). I find it pretty hard to believe that Obama is really "cutting" anywhere though, at least not in any meaningful sense. You can't cut a million dollars, then spend ten million and call it a "cut." I'm very supportive of American exceptionalism and continuing American dominance well into the 21st century and beyond; I can't help but laugh when liberal hippies talk about peace, because if their foreign policy came to fruition, that's the exact opposite of what we'd have.

Let me remind you of this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocky

(Cutbacks from Obama) - (Intellectual Discussion): This is more of a deeper topic then the former, and we would like your opinion on Obama's policy and his cutbacks to the military, and we would like you to take the side of the defence on his policy in this topic.

---

Asking your opinion. Don't hold back, chum.

Let me put it this way. How would you feel if your grandfather or father was in the military at one time, but a few years down the road, had nothing to show for it. Not a dime. Not a medal. Frankly because the Government didn't give a flying ****. That's what this could essentially turn into. And you agree with that? Geeze. Do more research please.

Just a quick questions after reading you original opening post Michael.I am intruiged to ee what you responces are before I get more involved in this conversation / discussion / soon to be debate.

A) you make the comparison to the government that runs the U.S.A. to the average American house hold and also reference the priorities that the family should take. First question is isn't protecting that family just as high on that list as say ensuring that family a 1000 squarefoot home?

A family needs the same protection reguardless the size shape or function of the structure around it.


B) Obama has oblitereated the YF-22 from exsistance. This particular aircraft was desinged to help maintain world peace on top of securing the American boarders providing not only a safer country but safer world.

As the down fall comes of this aircraft Obama has urged the use of the YF-23 JSF which has seen no improved sales revenue or request since the change over. This cut back not only jepordises my nations national security but also puts American soldirs that are being forced to fly in the less supirior plane at risk.

What are your thoughts on this?

On the same note. The demise of the YF22 has put thousands of Americans out of work, closed mulitple mom and pop buisnesses, and almost bankurupted Lockhede Martin which ironicallyproduces the YF-23 that Nato is being urged to use.

Thoughts on this?

If national defence is so important, why invade Iraq?

America has been aggressive, not defensive. Unilateral, not diplomatic. American expenditure on the military, in terms of % of GDP, actual dollars spent, % of government revenue -- all higher than anywhere else. And you're not any safer than before.

Who was going to invade the United States then? And who now?

I disagree with an overtly aggressive foreign policy, except for when it is necessary. I think that pointless conflicts like Iraq, and even more so, Libya are just a drain on national resources. We should maintain a presence globally with our fleets and bases around the world, but we shouldn't constantly get involved in civil wars or invade countries that have no clear benefit to the United States.

You ever heard of World Peace, Phoenix? If the US doesn't step in to help these countries, who will? If the US doesn't stop terrorism, again, who will? If they cut funding on operations like those. Those corrupt governments could do more than just kill their own people. They'll spread and become more disruptive for other countries. The US, as a department of the United Nations, help them. Funding is necessary for those kinds of operations. You can't just say. OH, they're not important. We don't live with them. Technically, we DO. They live on the same planet. Their actions reflect other world issues. They effect the economy as a whole. Do you think ignoring things like that will make them go away? Think again.

Meier, one thing comes to mind when I see your post. Diefenbaker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.Kyra

The US, as a department of the United Nations

---

But the US has been acting contrary to the United Nations. When it failed to get support for the Iraq war from the international community, it took it's buddy the UK and got jiggy with itself.

Who will? Everyone will -- not the United States alone. It is not the World Police. American military expenditure is completely out of hand.

Yeah I really don't think the Army military branch is in need of more enlistees. I'm in the National Guard so this definitely affects my fiance, the little ones, and myself. Right now we're over strength. Indiana National Guardsmen were affected by this because nearly half of our guys (active & reserve) aren't going on this years' deployment. It sucks because I have medical issues going on with my back so I couldn't go in the 1st place but for the ones that made the military a career, it's tampering with their lives.

Which is why I'm lifting my derp cap and going to school once this medical paper work and junk rolls over. Hell I get paid to go to school, might as well coast ride till I can get a GOOD paying job then the sucky one I have now. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha

American military expenditure is completely out of hand.

---

Not really, military spending is around 3.8% of our GDP, which compared to other countries is quite low.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phoenix Rising

Not really, military spending is around 3.8% of our GDP, which compared to other countries is quite low.

---

It's 4.8% and higher than everywhere else, and given your GDP is already a lot higher than most other places, it is astronomically high.

4.8% my mistake, but that is still lower than several other countries, including at least two first world countries. Though I do ask that you bear in mind that we are THE superpower.

As per the United Nations, I have this to say regarding it: http://thefinalfantasy.net/forums/in...d-nations.html

R.Kyra:
I'm sorry, but when did the ultimate goal of being in the military become a treasure hunt? A person should join the military because they want to protect. No person should risk their life because of the chance of a prize. As for the government cutting the military spending, or not caring about their soldiers if they don't pay them (in your eyes), I do not agree. The government does care about its soldiers. Things are tough, and cuts must be made. The government has cut everywhere else, so it is natural that the military gets cut as well. Furthermore, as someone who said in her initial post that she has done no research into the topic, who are you to say that I should do more?

Meier Link:
As for your question on the priorities of the American household, I guess it depends on where one lives. Where I am from, money is scarce to come by, and we have some of the highest unemployment rates in the country, not just in the state of Ohio. So, we have to decide whether to feed our families, repair what's broken down because we can't afford to replace it, protect our home from burglars because some people have resorted to theft to make ends meet, or insuring our home because it is the only thing we can truly call our own. For my family (when everyone was actually here to be involved in our family matters), we paid our monthly bills and my parents made sure us kids had food to eat. Everything was protected. Now that we have to start from scratch again, our main goal is eat, pay basic bills, and repair what's broken. The extra protection is just that, extra. Alarm systems and insurance aren't high enough on the list to pay attention to, though they should be in this dark time.

As for your questions regarding the situation of the YF-22, I will not be commenting on it. This thread is about the policy that is being put in place now. Not about one made in 2009. Though this current policy cuts more spending, and therefore adding to the cuts made in 2009, it is not relevant in my opinion for this thread.

What I will say on that topic is that it is unfortunate that it happened, but it isn't something that people here where I live aren't used to. Several years ago, the biggest business in the area (the atomic plant) closed down. Thousands were laid off. People had to start over. It was difficult, and some didn't recover (though not for lack of trying). But most found new jobs with our jet engine facility near my house. With all these cutbacks made in the current administration, again, some of these great people were laid off. They have to start over again. What is so great is that despite having so many hardships they've had to face, they know that things will get better. Yes, small businesses have had to close down due to lack of sales and whatnot, but the human spirit is one that can't be broken so easily. If the effort is made, then good things do come from it. The same can be said about the government. They are trying to make a fresh start, and if the effort and determination are there, then it is bound to produce good results.

Having served in the US Navy...

Military budget cuts will only effect the grunts and the low ranking.
Think about it.
Are we going to stop fixing and flying jets?
No.
Will we stop sailing across the world?
No.
Will there ever be a time that some part of the world isn't suffering a natural disaster, starvation, oppression or genocide?
No.

So the incentive pay is reduced for the low ranks. The food in the galley isn't going to be filling. There won't be any cable TV at the barracks. The gym will only be open half the time. The parts will tale longer to get shipped and they will make jerry-rigged fixes which take twice the time to perform.

And money is a motivating factor to those who enlist or recieve commission.
Speaking from personal expirience,
Micheal Swane,
You don't know what military cut backs mean.
Research the Carter administration.
When our nation's military comitments fall hand in hand with our humanitarian ones,
There is no trimming a little off the top.
It comes out of the wallets and stomachs of the E-4 and below. I expirienced it first hand.

Why is it a good idea from your perspective, Micheal?
Because you went to college. You never enlisted.
Those who are in the military seem distant. Robotic.
You can't imagine them being hungry, cold, miserable.
You have never worked for days on end to scare North Korea into staying away from Japan, or out of bombing South Korea. In North Korean water, with no food but whats left over from the past few days, in relentless cold.

You think it's okay that the lower enlisted lose their cost of living adjustment because you believe it's a bonus, rather than just enough to keep noodles and beer in the cupboard.

No, it is not good to cut military spending.
Cut military operational comitments, if possible. Cut back on deployments.
Do not cut back on equipment, food, supplies, incentive or COLA pay.
There isn't enough of that to go around in the first place.

Moreover,
Most countries on this planet count on the US military to do the bulk of the work.
Because we already do it. We will continue to do it.
We lead, we motivate, we train. Every single one of our allies.
If the US isn't organizing and leading the coalition, there is no coalition.



Money isn't an issue to service members...
You're a god damn jackass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Swayne

It seems like it is America's time to worry about ourselves, and take a step back. You know, let the other major players step up.

---

Why would we want "other major players [to] step up"?

Quote:

---

Though the government is reducing its military presence and cutting spending, the government is finally doing what the people have been asking for quite a long time. This plan will boost morale in Americans and increase the trust level the citizens have for the government.

---

Please explain how cutting military funding will in any way boost morale.

Quote:

---

This plan brings strength to our own borders, instead of thinning out our already stretched-out military.

---

Unfortunately for Obama, this will not strengthen anything. His policies include pulling troops off of our own borders as to not escalate tensions with Mexico -- in theory, sure, more of our military at home means more protection at home. In practice under Obama, that's not the case at all -- we will not only be weaker at home, we will be much weaker abroad, where our enemies are.

Quote:

---

If the government does this effectively, then it will possibly lead to a surge in enlistment. That way we can one day have a greater military presence throughout the world again.

---

How exactly will cutting funding lead to a surge in enlistment? Who in their right mind would say, "the Army pays less now than it did last year, this looks a great time to sign up!"? And I don't really follow the second statement there -- you think it would be good to cut out military, so that maybe later we can boost our military?

Quote:

---

As for the cutting of the military spending, I feel that it is about time. All across America citizens have to decide what to allocate money to. Do they get full-coverage insurance on their home, or food to feed their family? Do they get the security alarm or repair the car? If we have to make these decisions, then the government should as well.

---

There are plenty of other areas in which the federal government could, and should, cut. Defense, on the other hand, is one of the few actual Constitutionally-stated jobs of the federal government, and as such is one of their few actual obligations.

Quote:

---

If the plan doesn't work as well as they had hoped, then the people that were against it in the first place will be in the upswing, and the government will change again.

---

Unfortunately, when you're dealing with national defense, the idea isn't, "well, if Americans don't like this guy making the country weaker, nothing bad will happen except for this guy losing his job next election". Look at what Clinton did to our military and intelligence services.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Swayne

Let me first just point out that I was asked to write in favor of the policy.

---

I would assume so.

What American media bias?

Quote:

---

What I actually think does not matter in this situation.

---

In your article, perhaps not. Your thread, however, is a place to post and discuss your opinion.

Quote:

---

An All-Volunteer Military force may mean a smaller enlistment number, but it weeds out those trying to make a quick buck.

---

Make a quick buck? You've never seen our military's pay scale, have you?

Quote:

---

The ones who still want to protect the country would be doing it because they care about the safety of the country, and not for monetary gain.

---

Nobody enlists "for monetary gain". If they do, they're morons, because they're not going to make much money in the military.

And to think that people would go through some of the hardest training in the world, only to deploy to the most dangerous places in the world, and end up leaving without a penny? Nothing to send back to their families, nothing to spend on a new motorcycle (or a few new guns) when they get home, not a red cent? That's delusional, at best.

Quote:

---

As I said in the beginning of this post, what I believe doesn't really matter because I was asked to write in favor of the policy. As such, I have to agree that the policy is a good idea (though my personal opinion may or may not be the same).

---

Did your newspaper ask you to write a post in TFF supporting Obama's policies? This isn't a newspaper article which you were told to slant, this is the internet. You can say whatever you want, you're not getting paid for it anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha

If national defence is so important, why invade Iraq?

---

Because Iraq had threatened the United States and her allies and interests for decades, because Iraq was proven to have (and have used) chemical weapons with no evidence of any dismantling of their programs, because Iraq refused to comply with international mandates, because Iraq was seeking even more dangerous weapons, and because Iraq had been known to support terrorism.

Quote:

---

Who was going to invade the United States then? And who now?

---

It's not an issue of "nobody will invade, so we're safe". That would only apply if the United States abandoned every friend and ally across the globe and became completely self-sufficient. I know Ron Paul thinks that would work, but Ron Paul is a moron.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha

But the US has been acting contrary to the United Nations.

---

Correction: The U.S. has been acting according with United Nations mandates, but contrary to other United Nations countries. Basically, we're one of the few countries with the balls to back up UN resolutions, whereas most other countries are all talk.

Quote:

---

When it failed to get support for the Iraq war from the international community, it took it's buddy the UK and got jiggy with itself.

---

Sure, the UK and 46 other countries.

Quote:

---

Who will? Everyone will -- not the United States alone. It is not the World Police. American military expenditure is completely out of hand.

---

It's the UN's job to be "World Police", but the UN is incompetent, so it falls to the highest responsible power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Swayne

I'm sorry, but when did the ultimate goal of being in the military become a treasure hunt? A person should join the military because they want to protect. No person should risk their life because of the chance of a prize.

---

How much do you think combat Soldiers and Marines make? Seriously?

Quote:

---

As for the government cutting the military spending, or not caring about their soldiers if they don't pay them (in your eyes), I do not agree. The government does care about its soldiers.

---

You've obviously never been through the VA system.

Quote:

---

Things are tough, and cuts must be made. The government has cut everywhere else, so it is natural that the military gets cut as well.

---

They've cut everywhere else? Where?

Quote:

---

As for your questions regarding the situation of the YF-22, I will not be commenting on it. This thread is about the policy that is being put in place now. Not about one made in 2009. Though this current policy cuts more spending, and therefore adding to the cuts made in 2009, it is not relevant in my opinion for this thread.

---

It's an extension of the same type of policy, all relating to cutting military funding for projects needed to maintain superiority. How is it not relevant?

Quote:

---

They are trying to make a fresh start, and if the effort and determination are there, then it is bound to produce good results.

---

It's bound to produce results. Not necessarily good results, just results. Obama had effort and determination, and we are not much worse as a country than we were before he took office.

In addition, I'll prettymuch second what Order said.

These kinds of discussions always go this way.
Someone posts their painfully uninformed opinions about a topic reguarding politics of the US.
They use a snarky way of typing in response to initial retorts and accuse the US and its federal branches of baseless BS.
Then someone who has personal expirience with the issue points out just how misguided the original post is and then....
No response.

Also,
The US does put a lot of money toward our military.
In a room full of guys with guns, its nice to be the one with the biggest.
I'd like the US to keep our big stick and deal with being called bullies.
Its better than being a victim.

Just a question to help me understand, What enemy countries do the US have that actually have an army??

North Korea, China (even though we are civil toward eachother most of the time).

Short list, I know.

The reason is because most of the people dumb enough to attack the most powerful coutry in the world are too dumb to own a coutry with set borders and a standing military.

Also, who here cried when Saddam died?

It may not seem like having a globally dominating military is important now that we have one.
Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and, say china had military bases in every major city in america and we depended upon their forces spending their money to sustain the local economy...
because thats how it was in every port I ever hit in the Navy.

At any rate,
There are plenty of good reasons that a superpower should maintain ther status as such. Cutting military funding should come after minimizing the impact of the fed in a citizens daily life.

When was America ever at war with Korea or China? Has there even ever been any threats from them? In the last 100 years, or even before that?

The United States fought North Korea and China during the Korean war, you jackass.
You can google that, too.

Also, nobody asked who we are at war with.

Let's at least do a little research before we form an opinion and start with the condescending, nose up turned stuff.

I do it because I have personal expirience with topics I choose to debate, or have at least done enough research to be able to predict most counter-points.

Seriously,
Encyclopedia these things.
Pick up a historical report, watch a documentary, look at some statistics.
From reliable sources.

Do that stuff before you come to me with your "yeah.... But what about X?"

Also,
This is intellectual discussion.
Post minimum is a paragraph, three sentence fragments doesn't cut it.

You have failed to contribute new ideas and information to the topic.

Reason im asking questions and not issuing statements you absolute cunt :)

Also the war was over 60 years ago, alot has changed since then and nethier countries are making threats towards the USA, so again i ask, what ENEMIES do the US have that have an army?

Also my point before you started crying like a cunt, is the US are spending billions of dollars on their military to fight against the invisible threats of the world.

The only reason Iraq are committing terrorist attacks on the US is because you have invaded them twice and blew the shit out of their country and killed thousands of innocent civilians, you then pack up and leave the country in ruins and expect them to not bare a grudge and do the same thing again in a decade or so...

I see America as the bullies of the world, making speeches about love and peace and all your army is good for is invading and destroying :)

Peace keeping is the right approach for a better world, not investing billions into more weapons you don't even need, nobody in the world can counter the US's weaponry.

Also if you want less threats in the world, how about the US stop arming other countries? ;)

Get on google, find some documentaries on issues you want to learn about and become educated.
Asking some dickbag like me on some arbitrary forum is no way to learn about world politics. For all you know, everything I say may be a lie. I might be as much the real Order as Sasquatch is the real bigfoot.
Besides, normally, when someone asks if there are any enemies of the United States, they are being a sarcastic douche. It is an easily google-able question.

To get back on topic,
Are there advantages to not having a powerful military?
Yes.
Let's look at japan for example:
Japan has the option to build it's own military force and create a global presence. However, they choose to limit their military to a self defense force. Meaning, they operate only within their own boarders and waters, spend minimal money and enlist minimal personnel.
The advantage is that they spend very little compaired to their GDP.
The problem is, when North Korea decided to act crazy and fire missiles toward their country, Japan could offer no reason why North Korea shouldn't. Other than, of course, that firing ballistic missiles at another country is fundamentally wrong.
Well, North Korea went ahead and launched those missiles, without even being able to predict where they would land.
Until then, there had been major resistance from Japan to the United States' goal of replacing the USS Kittyhawk with the nuclear powered USS George Washington. However, once those missiles were launched, Japan requested that the UN and, specifically, the United States interviene.

The United States did take action.
Immidiately after that incident, only small groups of Japanese citizens continued to speak against the replacement of the Kittyhawk.

Now why was it that Japan doesn't feel the need to have a powerful military again?
Oh, yeah. Money.
But without a strong military, where does the rest of Japan's money go?
Their social programs should be exemplory. Their school systems should be extemely effective. Their public transport should be easy to access and efficient.
Well, Japan got one of those things right.

What about other countries with relatively small militaries?
How are their economies doing?
What is the connection between economic prosperity and military strength?

I've heard rumors that Norway is actually doing pretty well these days. Unlike most countries, their economy is actually picking up. Supposedly, (and I heard this on The Daily Show, so don't take it as fact) Norway stated during a NATO summit that they are interested in playing a bigger role in international security and that they plan on expanding their military.

So how does all that apply to the US?
Basically, many people seem recognize that the economy of the US is not as strong as it has been in the past. I fully agree that we could be exporting more and importing less.
However, we are not in such a desperate situation that we should be cutting back military spending. We should definately not be allowing congress to get so out of control that they actually consider witholding military pay, or cutting incentive pay.

Despite all the doomsaying and QQing, the US economy is still pretty strong. It is not irreperable.

My questions were a result of EVERYBODY in this thread referring to enemies but not actually naming any. So if your gonna debate, atleast put forward all of the information then maybe i wont have to ask questions to know what the **** kinda bs you're talking about :)

Back on topic? I havent left it, it just seems you don't like my questions ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nix

Reason im asking questions and not issuing statements you absolute cunt :)

---

Now now children, let's keep it civil.

Quote:

---

Also the war was over 60 years ago, alot has changed since then and nethier countries are making threats towards the USA, so again i ask, what ENEMIES do the US have that have an army?

---

First, North Korea has made many threats to many countries, including the United States. And second, just because a country doesn't have a huge military doesn't mean that it cannot possibly pose a threat to anybody.

Quote:

---

The only reason Iraq are committing terrorist attacks on the US is because you have invaded them twice and blew the shit out of their country and killed thousands of innocent civilians, you then pack up and leave the country in ruins and expect them to not bare a grudge and do the same thing again in a decade or so...

---

Iraq isn't committing terrorist attacks, first of all. Foreigners are coming into Iraq to fight against Americans. And Iraq was not "invaded" in the Persian Gulf war, they were simply chased -- in fact, one of the reasons the Kurds didn't care for us was because we DIDN'T fully invade like they had believed, so their revolution was brutally crushed.

Oh, yeah -- and both Iraq Wars involved a very large Coalition of troops from dozens of different countries. Maybe you forgot about that.

Quote:

---

I see America as the bullies of the world, making speeches about love and peace and all your army is good for is invading and destroying :)

---

I guess the millions upon millions (likely, billions) of people that have been freed by the United States military aren't as important as the thousands that have been killed by it.

Quote:

---

Peace keeping is the right approach for a better world, not investing billions into more weapons you don't even need, nobody in the world can counter the US's weaponry.

---

So the United States has the best military in the world ... does that mean it should stop trying to be better still?

Quote:

---

Also if you want less threats in the world, how about the US stop arming other countries? ;)

---

Yeah, all those other countries that want to defend themselves ... **** them, they don't need to defend themselves!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Now now children, let's keep it civil.

First, North Korea has made many threats to many countries, including the United States. And second, just because a country doesn't have a huge military doesn't mean that it cannot possibly pose a threat to anybody.

Iraq isn't committing terrorist attacks, first of all. Foreigners are coming into Iraq to fight against Americans. And Iraq was not "invaded" in the Persian Gulf war, they were simply chased -- in fact, one of the reasons the Kurds didn't care for us was because we DIDN'T fully invade like they had believed, so their revolution was brutally crushed.

Oh, yeah -- and both Iraq Wars involved a very large Coalition of troops from dozens of different countries. Maybe you forgot about that.

I guess the millions upon millions (likely, billions) of people that have been freed by the United States military aren't as important as the thousands that have been killed by it.

So the United States has the best military in the world ... does that mean it should stop trying to be better still?

Yeah, all those other countries that want to defend themselves ... **** them, they don't need to defend themselves!

---

Ok ill give you North Korea, but them being a threat to the US? Having trouble to believe..

In regards to the gulf, not invaded? C'mon! Chased? wtf does that even mean in your terms? Regardless, you went to Iraq, bombed the shit out of Baghdad, killed over 100 thousand innocent civilians.
And you killed a fraction of enemy troops in comparison to the innocents lost (which your country armed btw) all to get one man??? Which you failed to do that time around.

And in regards to your quote "So the United States has the best military in the world ... does that mean it should stop trying to be better still?" My answer is yes, atleast until some countries start nearly catching up. You could do better for your country by putting the funding elsewhere, which is exactly what Obama is trying to do.

And you may arm countries to defend themselves, but you have armed countries and then gone on to blow the shit out of them too.

The logical step would have been to not arm countries but to disarm the opposing country (not by carpet bombing them) Y'know actually use your army and not have them sit back and enjoy the very expensive fireworks shows put on..

Thanks for the response Sas, im sorry if im coming off as cheeky, I'm just going with what ive learned over the years. And i was civil until order flamed and backseat modded me ;)

That sounds like a lot of the same I commonly hear from foreigners,
"Give other people a chance."
"Leave poor ol' Iraq alone."
"Fight fair."

It is the goal of the US military to never engage in a fair fight. Never to risk the lives of our countrymen or service members if it can be avoided.

So, no.
To put it bluntly, the US should not and, I hope, will not give anyone else a chance to catch up.

And I also hope the US continues to have the guts to be the first country to call bullshit on dictators, xenophobes, conquerers and tyrants.
At least the power is in the hands of a government and a society that occasionally feels compassion.

Iraqi civillians died. Its a fact.
The united states began humanitarian operations as soon as our military objectives had been completed.
Not only that, but the US also helped to train a new Iraqi military.
The US military is not a group of button-pushers. The people in washington are trying to do whats right and even the little guys like I was are trying to as well.

When faced with the descisions in washington, there will be mistakes and the question of the lesser evil.
And there are the rare cases of officials and grunts who actually do intend to do wrong. But over all, from what I saw, the US military is a culture of honor and responsability.

Heh, even if you werent gonna carpet bomb them for days, it still wouldnt be a fair fight.

I want less bombings as you havent a clue where to aim them and you kill thousands of innocence. I dont know about you, but to me thats unacceptable.

Nix, you're from canada.
If you think our bombs are that innaccurate, come on down to MIT, get yourself an engineering degree, get hired by lockheed martin and teach us hillbilly americans how to build a guidance system properly.

Seriously,
Don't you think that the country which invented just about every piece of computer and engineering technology in use today employs the most advanced equipment in it's military hardware?
We actually do not carpet bomb, as a moral standard. Can we do it? Better than anyone. Do we do it often? Hell no. You can't imagine how rare it is that an operation like that could be, at the same time, safe, effective, beneficial beyond the cost and with minimal collateral damage.
We have the capability, but since so many people scream at us to lead the attack, then scream at us for doing the killing...
The US employs what's called precision bombing. We minimize the destructiveness of a 500lb bomb, dropped from a supersonic jet at 30,000 feet.
Honestly, does any of this sound simple?

Do you think Canadian pilots could do better?
Nix, do you think Canadian computer technology is capable? Do you think your technicians could be tough enough, could understand the importance of maintaining those computers? Do you think there is another country in the world that, if they were going drop one bomb, could hit their intended target?

I've played wargames with most of the US' allies. My squadron's lifetime record stands as undefeated against foreign fighter squadrons.
In 60 years, the only people to shoot down one of those pilots in a war game were other american pilots.

So what do you think, Nix?
Do you think that you could find a more qualified unit on the planet to wage war?
Do you think a Canadian pilot could place a bomb more precisely?

The answer to both is no.
There is no more qualified military on the planet.
And a Canadian pilot (who would be flying old american hardware...) Could not place a bomb more precisely.
I'm not guessing at this.
I have seen HUD film footage of this. It was my job.

But you didn't suggest that anyone would do better explicitly. What you said was you want less bombing.
Referring back to your previous posts,
You said something along the lines of, we should allow other countries a chance to catch up.
How long would that take?
England,
10 years.

Canada,
A little longer.

Japan,
After building a real military, 10+ years.

Russia,
20 years.

North Korea,
50

Malaysia,
Probably 70 years...

Sudan,
Shit, they're still using old communist hardware from the USSR.

Would the US ever consider making absolutely no technological advances and making no changes to its military of the next...... 8 million years while the rest of the planet gets itself together and learns how to build its own computers and equipment without the US holding their hands?
Nope.
Nix,
If you were a hockey (or whatever lame sport you prefer) player...
Would you let your opposition have time to discover and employ equipment and plays you came up with?
Or, would you continue to be creative and think up new ways to keep getting better?

Also,
How many nations do you know have built entire, full functioning and fully manned Naval ships to be operated by the Navy specifically for humanitarian operations?
If you don't believe me, google USNS Comfort and USNS Mercy.
How many of those does Canada own?
How many exist in the entire world?

You're the one living in a country witha military that's only good for fighting.
The US hands out more foreign aid than Canada. And, a lot of the time, it is our service memebers doing the work.
We've built drinkable water supplies and sewer systems in towns and villages in Iraq and Afganistan. We've come to the aid of countries which have been devastated by natural disasters.
We have stepped in and mediated peace negotiations between warring or potentially hostile groups from habibi tribes in the desert to members of the UN.
The people shouldering the weight when it comes to those jobs are service members.

What is Canada's military good for?
What other military does more work, fighting or otherwise, than the US?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nix

Ok ill give you North Korea, but them being a threat to the US? Having trouble to believe..

---

Whether or not they are a threat directly to us is irrelevant. They are a threat to United States allies and interests.

Quote:

---

Regardless, you went to Iraq, bombed the shit out of Baghdad, killed over 100 thousand innocent civilians.

---

I'm not sure where you're getting your statistics (most likely, from your own ass), but the civilian deaths in the Persian Gulf War totaled less than 5,000.

If you're referring to the civilian death toll from Operation Iraqi Freedom, which has reached over 100,000, you would do well to do a bit more research, as less than 15% of those civilian deaths have been caused by Coalition Forces. The United States has snipers, drones, satellite imagery, and bombs that can go through windows ... our enemies have old artillery rounds buried in the ground with pressure plates that set them off when they get driven or stepped on, they have notoriously inaccurate rifles that they haven't maintained or been trained on, and they have a knack for executing anybody and everybody they disagree with. Use some common sense, here.

Quote:

---

And you killed a fraction of enemy troops in comparison to the innocents lost (which your country armed btw) all to get one man??? Which you failed to do that time around.

---

Wait ... you're still talking about the Persian Gulf War? Oh, then you're even more wrong.

See, the United States and Coalition Forces killed about 30,000 Iraqi troops. Now, I'm not sure how good or bad at math you are, but 30,000 is in no way "a fraction" of 5,000, unless you want to put it in terms of 6/1. Yes, that's right -- as I'm sure any Google search can tell you, out of all Iraqi deaths during the Gulf War, there were six times as many military deaths as civilian deaths.

And yes, we helped arm Saddam. Because as dangerous as Islamic extremism is, it's still not as dangerous as Communism, and we did what we had to to stop the spread of the most murderous government type this planet has ever known.

But no, the goal of the Persian Gulf War was not to kill Saddam. To claim such is ignorant at best. If we had wanted to take out Saddam, we would have waged a conflict that lasted more than 40 days.

Quote:

---

And in regards to your quote "So the United States has the best military in the world ... does that mean it should stop trying to be better still?" My answer is yes, atleast until some countries start nearly catching up.

---

Then you're wrong. You don't say, "well if we went to war, we would be hurt pretty equally with our enemies, and we're happy with that." You say, "if we go to war, we will crush our enemies while taking minimal losses."

Quote:

---

You could do better for your country by putting the funding elsewhere, which is exactly what Obama is trying to do.

---

The places Obama is redirecting that tax money to will do nothing but purchase votes and breed dependency. He's already done it for three and a half years, why stop now?

Quote:

---

And you may arm countries to defend themselves, but you have armed countries and then gone on to blow the shit out of them too.

---

Rarely has that happened, and then only when their motives have changed.

Quote:

---

The logical step would have been to not arm countries but to disarm the opposing country (not by carpet bombing them) Y'know actually use your army and not have them sit back and enjoy the very expensive fireworks shows put on..

---

Disarm how? Ask politely? Arming one side of a conflict is a way to contribute without direct involvement -- getting directly involved kind of negates that.

Quote:

---

Thanks for the response Sas, im sorry if im coming off as cheeky, I'm just going with what ive learned over the years.

---

Might want to check up on that, then. I'm not sure how you got certain ideas, especially concerning the Persian Gulf War and its objectives and military/civilian casualty ratio, but they are nowhere near factual.

Quote:

---

And i was civil until order flamed and backseat modded me ;)

---

You did post two extremely short posts, which is technically against the rules. Are you going to get mad at somebody for telling you about the rules you're breaking, then bypass the profanity filter to insult them? You're more mature than that, aren't you?

I got most of the stats from wiki, they didnt state the stats were spread out over the entire 2 bullshit gulf "wars". or tarket practice i should refer to them as...

And i wasnt crying over some member telling me of the forum rules, i was meerley pointing out the irony of some member pointing out that im breaking rules, when the very thing he is doing is breaking the rules. No backseat modding ;)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information, statistics, historical fact or polling.
Since anyone can write anything on that site, it is best to assume all information contained there was submitted from a biased source.
Nix, you clearly have been misled.
Stop listening to what everyone else tells you and do your own research and form your own oppinions.
Moreover, your knowladge of US military history seems limited to just two incidents in the same country and your facts are all wrong about both. How can you believe strongly, one way or another, with almost nothing to build those beliefs from?
You should either hit the books or stop stating opinions about the subject. Nothing you have said has contributed to the debate, no facts you have stated are true to any degree of accuracy, your oppinions were clearly hand fed to you and you have exactly zero historical knowladge to draw back on to support yourself.
"Thing's you learned over the years..."? What is that supposed to mean? That you've accidentally absorbed everything you know on the topic?
knowladge doesn't work that way, gullability does. When you agree with someone else's opinion blindly and never follow up on any of their claims, thats called being misled, being gullable.

Also, what is "backseat modding" and how have I broken any forum rules?
Does my strong tone, broad knowladge base of US military history and confidence offend you, nix?

I do read books and occasionally listen to people who are more informed than i discuss the matter, I cant quote em on the net can i, seeing as im not referring to it for medical advice, wikipedia is easiest and accurate enough when dealing with people who try to rationalise the continued support of the murder of countless innocence :)

How about we take a step back and approach war differently? Like when we go and blow the shit out of our enemies we then cloth/feed/educate the rest that we dont blow the shit out of?

As the way it is now, its just gonna keep on looping over and over, could prob take a pool on when you guys head back to Baghdad, or i mean blow the shit out of Bahdad and then head in ;)

And I'm not offended Order, but you pointing out rules in an effort to reinforce them is deemed as backseat modding and in itself against the rules, i was just meerley pointing that out as i found it humorous :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Order

You should either hit the books,Your oppinions were clearly hand fed to you

---

Is reading a book not the same thing? Is there an almighty book of credible information? Does one mans published opinion outweigh anothers unpublished work? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nix

... people who try to rationalise the continued support of the murder of countless innocence :)

---

Who's trying to rationalize the murder of innocents, other than you?

I mean, that is what you're doing, after all -- trying to claim that we should have continued letting Saddam brutally slaughter millions of innocent people, including women and children, because you don't like war.

Quote:

---

How about we take a step back and approach war differently? Like when we go and blow the shit out of our enemies we then cloth/feed/educate the rest that we dont blow the shit out of?

---

... Are you saying that you don't like that we clothe/feed/educate people, or are you claiming that we don't do that, but should? Either way, we do clothe/feed/educate people, we do send billions to stabilize their economy, we do train their security forces, we do rebuild their infrastructure to a point of superiority over pre-war conditions. This is why Iraq now has more clean water, more education, more hospital access, more electricity, more trash and sewage collection, and more women's rights than at any point in the last four decades.

Quote:

---

As the way it is now, its just gonna keep on looping over and over, could prob take a pool on when you guys head back to Baghdad, or i mean blow the shit out of Bahdad and then head in ;)

---

It will keep looping, if we obey cowards who don't have the courage to stand and fight and would rather cut and run.

Look at Vietnam. We went to Vietnam to stop Communist North Vietnam from taking over free South Vietnam. And we did. Until politicians and protesters put enough pressure on the government to pull the rug out from under South Vietnam -- and what happened? As soon as we declared a plan, North Vietnam slowed down their attacks. A bunch of morons shouted, "look, they just wanted us out -- now that they know we're leaving, they're not attacking as much! Us leaving will solve all the problems!" Then what? As soon as we left, the North invaded again, brutally slaughtering hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese noncombatants. The exact same thing would have happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, if we had let people like you get your way.

Quote:

---

And I'm not offended Order, but you pointing out rules in an effort to reinforce them is deemed as backseat modding and in itself against the rules, i was just meerley pointing that out as i found it humorous :)

---

And you pointing that out is backseat modding. And me pointing that out is backseat modding. So really, is it that important?

Quote:

---

Does one mans published opinion outweigh anothers unpublished work? :)

---

In a word ... yes. Internet blogs and such are not credible sources of information -- that includes Wikipedia. If you look through Wiki for information, you should try going through the links at the bottom of the page.

And I highly doubt that even Wikipedia has anything that even remotely hints at civilian deaths in the Persian Gulf war totaling into the hundreds of thousands. In fact, Wikipedia links here, which states that Iraqi civilian casualties numbered 3,664, compared to 20,000-35,000 Iraqi military casualties. So the idea that the Baghdad campaign "killed over 100 thousand innocent civilians", or that the United States "killed a fraction of enemy troops in comparison to the innocents lost", is complete and utter bullshit. Anybody making either of those claims is severely lacking in either intelligence or honesty.

“But war, in a good cause, is not the greatest evil which a nation can suffer. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice – a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice – is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.”

John Stuart Mill

Nix,
The US already DOES automatically provide food, clothes, education, infastructure and trains police and military forces in Iraq amd Afghanistan... As Sasquach said up there, as I have stated before, as has been in the news, as has been recorded in several documentaries and as is common knowladge among americans.
The reason we do that is to "win hearts and minds", meaning hopefully when we leave, Iraqi people will like the US more than they did before. Maybe we won't need to help them tear down another dictator.

You are defending the fact that you refuse to form your own opinions using facts and resources from credible institutions?
You're trying to tell me that my military is bad and you know ABSOLUTELY nothing about it.
Much like the guy who originally started this thread.

If you are going to take a stance on a subject, you had better learn a little bit about it before you start talking. Your opinions are not your own, you know nothing of the world outside your little sheltered corner.
You have not been,
You have not done,
You have not seen,
Anything.

You're the type of person who would go to Japan and think all the people there are polite because they smile while they say racist things about you in japanese, using a friendly tone.
You would go to the Phillipines and see children in the street without clothes on and you would talk about how they have terrible parents.
You are the type of person who sees North Korea as a far away country which isn't a threat to you.
You think China is an ally because they joined the UN.

You are oblivious to the true workings of countries and cultures outside you own.