I thought that was what we did with Blackwater, et al.Oh, yeah, it is different, because the way the fedgov does outsourcing we pay more instead of less.
Don't bring home the troops just yet - Obama...
- Thread starter curtix
- Start date
-
- Tags
- few are eden mini swim
I thought that was what we did with Blackwater, et al.Oh, yeah, it is different, because the way the fedgov does outsourcing we pay more instead of less.
Currently, yes we are over-extended and so, to my point, we are seeing some upstarts start to test our limits. This becomes an even more likely scenario if the playing field is leveled and countries have more equally matched power. Folks don't enter conflicts they know they will lose, and until recently everyone assumed a conflict with the US or allies fell into that bucket.
Countries like Germany and Japan, who were forced to demilitarize in 1945 because of the US Military, do fine because we have a military presence around the world.
I bet West Germany was super happy we stationed our tank brigades in their country, and I wonder if Japan would be nervous if we decommissioned our carrier fleet.
I thought this article was interesting, about the improvements by Clinton to the American Military, including higher salaries and improved technologies.
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251793&kaid=124&subid=159
That's smart.
C
curtix
Guest
Spot on. Clinton had the right thing going there. Our Military is so important to Global Stability. You can argue whats done with the Military as far as choices that leaders have made in the past. But the old " if we beat our guns into plow sheers and the rest will follow " mentality is just a bit far outside of reality. On a side note I think Obama wants to seriously damage the US Military's Power and that = epic fail.
C
curtix
Guest
I disagree.
The perception of Clinton was "Dont Ask Dont Tell" and a weak military. While we did not have any major conflicts, well maybe that tells you something.
C
curtix
Guest
This is what I thought was spot on. You don't agree? By far not EVERYTHING he did, but the part you mentioned.
Sure, until 1960 perhaps in the case of Japan. Surely you're not making the argument that the United States needs soldiers in Germany anymore to prevent against the menace of the Warsaw Pact...
No chance Russia would invade another country. Or China for that matter. Just ask the Dalai Lama.
Again, my thing is smart use of the military, like a war over WMD's and oil
A lot more. Both up front AND in the long run. When we have lost at least 1/3 of our SF soldiers to private contractors, it leave our existing military black ops in worse shape than an unarmored M998 in Kabul.
Oh, yeah, it is different, because the way the fedgov does outsourcing we pay more instead of less.
I like what he has to say, but I have trouble believing him.
Did you just compare Tibet (invaded 60 years ago) and Georgia to Germany today?
And even if you did, you may have noticed that our glorious military might can't do **** all about either situation...
You win. Since you have no opinion that anyone in charge cares about, keep saying total disarmament. I will keep saying Santa Claus and maybe both will be real one day.
You've been blowing off those "Learn to Read" classes at the local library, haven't you?
silver said:
That's right. I can write but I am still working on the reading stuff.
Hey, I'm sorry I find your illogic exasperating. You think we should diminish our military, and me and the last 4 Presidents do not.
Curtix, quick, socialist on socialist violence!
before i ask this question, understand i'm staunchly pro-military, but rabidly anti-bureaucracy: can you name one organization on similar scale which runs at any level of what could be mistaken for efficient or cost-effective? but maybe efficiency isn't what makes our military so necessary, perhaps. maybe it's the fact that ann coulter's metaphor of us rolling over in bed one night & squishing canada is becoming personified.
bush doctrine be damned - or defined - i think we've long ago feathered our nest beyond reason. we should at least change the distributions of various specialties. 100 support personnel for each pilot? something smells fishy around the tailhook.
What problem has an overgrown military solved in the last 50 years that it didn't also help create and or wasn't pointless?
I'm not against improving the military, I'm not against streamlining the military, I'm not even against cutting back the military.
But we need the military. That's what the point I'm trying to make.
free-market military?
**** yeah! privatize that ****!
C
curtix
Guest
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4787809.ece
"What has Nato decided? What has it secured? It only provoked a conflict, nothing else."
Mr Medvedev spoke as the Duma, Russia's lower house of parliament, passed a 25-per cent increase in defence spending next year from $40 billion to $50 billion.
.....
Wait a minute, I thought we were all going to beat our weapons into plow sheers?
"What has Nato decided? What has it secured? It only provoked a conflict, nothing else."
Mr Medvedev spoke as the Duma, Russia's lower house of parliament, passed a 25-per cent increase in defence spending next year from $40 billion to $50 billion.
.....
Wait a minute, I thought we were all going to beat our weapons into plow sheers?
Russia's economy is ****, and NATO spends 849,875,309,000 dollars a year on defense, almost 17 times what Russia will be spending.
Russia is in really bad shape right now, their population is decreasing, and the difference between the poor and the rich is massive. They aren't a threat to the U.S if that's what you are getting at.
Russia is in really bad shape right now, their population is decreasing, and the difference between the poor and the rich is massive. They aren't a threat to the U.S if that's what you are getting at.
C
curtix
Guest
LOL
Lets all pretend that Russia isn't a possible problem. Heck I am sure this is just to boost their economy.
Last edited by a moderator:
Uhhh Russia isn't and hasn't been a threat, the Soviet Union was hyped by the neocons to be more dangerous than it really was, and the neocons are doing the same thing with terrorists and Russia today.LOL
C
curtix
Guest
Right
C
curtix
Guest
Umm Wikipedia is what your resorting too. Come on man.
Besides its not 1970 any more. Ask Georgia ( might I add go Georgia Rugby - Bastards are great side, See Recent World Cup
irate2: ) if they are a problem - besides that can we not stay in modern times here. Ninja Please.You fail at making Russia a peace loving non threat to the world.
I posted a wikipedia link so you know it was a real organization and that Team B was used to hype up the Soviet Union.Umm Wikipedia is what your resorting too. Come on man.
Besides its not 1970 any more. Ask Georgia ( might I add go Georgia Rugby - Bastards are great side, See Recent World Cup
You fail at making Russia a peace loving non threat to the world.
Georgia started the South Ossetia war, Russia went too far, but they had every right to go in.
C
curtix
Guest
Hahahhaha - You have got to be kidding. Let em traspose the conflict for you.
Texas decided to descent and rejoin Mexico!
The US tries to stop them!
Then Mexico has every right to go in.
?!?!?!?!PLEASE tell me your joking. We had better cause to invade Iraq than Russia did to invade Georgia.
wow dude.
just explain to me when ussr/russia crossed a magical line from a nuclear nation of mass killing into a toothless contained kitteh. and please don't be inconvenienced by things such as bay of pigs, providing arms & training to our enemies, nukular subs, numerous unprovoked invasions/skirmishes w/ sovereign nations, etc.
off to work, then catching a plane, so you've plenty of time to get back to me
Yes, pretty much every scenario from the Cold War had the CCCP making Western Europe it's bitch in a conventional sense. Fortunately our computers could play tic-tac-toe.
Stink, it's useless to still think of the Russians in a cold war sense, they ain't and we ain't either, thank f*ck, but they do have a reason to think we're trying to f*ck with them. Any former satellite west of the Urals is being asked to join Nato and I don't blame them for having a serious case of puckeris arseholis. Too fast, too soon, with a country that has too many nuclear weapons with not enough history of democracy. Give them time, seems to me too many people want them to be the enemy again.
In a conventional conflict against a nationalized entity, we would absolutely crush Russia, like we did Saddam (which thanks to non-nationalized entities is not the same as present day Iraq). They know it and we know. A $10B increase in their spending is insignificant. Yes, we still have to be concerned about their existing nuclear arsenal, but it's more of a threat on a proliferation front (I needs me some rubles!) than Russia ever actually using it.
Anyone that claims Russia is a real threat to the US (versus it's even poorer and shoddily armed ex-"republics") is playing your political gusli.
Anyone that claims Russia is a real threat to the US (versus it's even poorer and shoddily armed ex-"republics") is playing your political gusli.
Russia is no threat... as long as we have troops stationed in Europe's eastern border. Conversely, why doesn't Russia disarm? They have no fear of us, right?
I think you haven't thought much about the 1968 Invasion of Czechoslovakia, 1958 Invasion of Hungary, or the general subjugation of Poland, East Germany, etc?
I think NATO and our nuclear arsenal was a necessary by-product of a long cold war, which thankfully never heated up and we won.
The War on Terrorism has nothing to do with Iraq, so we really screwed up there.
Just to clear up, the threat of the Soviets was overhyped by the neocons, but they still were a slight threat. I should have been more clear, I'm not saying the Soviets were kittens, but the danger was fantasized with the only evidence being the lack of evidence. The notion that we "won" I don't really agree with, because it was a failed system that collapsed in on itself. I should have been more clear about the Soviets, I meant to emphasize the point that the neocons use fear for political gain, and have a history of using insane reasoning to give the impression that there is a bigger threat than there really is.
Valve is exactly right about why they feel threatened, there is a distinctly anti-Russian military alliance moving up on their borders.
Curtix, I believe in self-determination, so if the state of Texas voted and wanted to join Mexico, and the election was fair, I would be perfectly fine with them, or any other state, joining. 90% of South Ossetians hold Russian passports, but Russia did go too far into Georgia, and should have stopped the advance.
Actually Samirol I kind of agree with El-stinko, the Soviet Union was a real threat. My apologies if I sound patronising but are you old enough to really remember the cold war? I am, barely, and my memories were of immense relief when the Soviet empire crumbled. That having been said, there's still more than a few cold war warriors floating around in the West (and doubtless in Russia too) but there's no way we can compare Russia today with the CCCP. A flawed democracy it may be, but it's still a democracy. I can certainly understand why they'd be pissed off at the West.
Like I said, I mistyped, when I meant by "Russia isn't and hasn't been a threat", I was referring to the Russian Federation since the collapse of the Soviet government, and I mentioned the Soviet Union because the neocons have a history of raising fear levels for political gain.
edit: "slight" in my post above is an understatement, they were a real threat, but the threat was considerably less than the neocons made it out to be
edit: "slight" in my post above is an understatement, they were a real threat, but the threat was considerably less than the neocons made it out to be
Last edited:
I certainly agree that fear was a strong element of the Cold War, which extended the war for decades.
C
curtix
Guest
Which wars was fear not a strong element?