| Author |
Message |
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
 Thu Apr 28, 2005 7:41 am |
|
Reagan was a smooth talker, but no great president. I don't like that our citizens are being sent overseas to fight and "defend" our country.
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Thu Apr 28, 2005 9:17 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | We're already the strongest by an order of magnitude. There's simply no need to continue putting that kind of funding into the armed forces in the name of protection. If our military is supposed to be protecting us, why aren't they here? Why are they protecting us from the other side of the world? Our military isn't being used to defend us, it's being used to further our interests in the world at large. I don't like that, especially since my taxes pay for it. |
You are just plain WRONG  They ARE defending us. Sure, it's not simply at our homeland, but it doesn't have to be. They are defending our country OVERSEES from those who would kill us here. The best defense is a good offense, and the best offense is a good defense.
But borgslayer is right. We should INCREASE our military (like Reagan did), not bring it down. |
I disagree strongly with that. I don't think it should be increased. What is the money needed for? New missiles? New ships? What kind of threat would need very special things such as lots of ships and nuclear bombs? The nukes so far are a massive disincentive for war, and if it happened there would be almost no world left so it wouldn't matter if it took out 10 miles or 100. Ships are only used to ship goods or aircraft these days, so there is no point in improving them now as the ones that are there currently are fine. These are two examples.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:50 am |
|
Don't know much about the US military, do you? About 40% of the ships are barely "making do". They aren't as state of the art as they'd have you believe. They sometimes have to cannibalize parts from lesser "important" systems, to keep others going. And all systems are "important", or they wouldn't be onboard. Destroyers aren't cargo vessels. ACC aren't, either, though they do carry aircraft. I mean, just what is it you think the 4000+ sailors do? Steer the boat?
As for the nukes, I'd assume we have plenty. Though they do need things for nuclear powered subs, etc...
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Thu Apr 28, 2005 3:44 pm |
|
That's why we need to cut down on the number of people and vehicles that we field, as well as closing less important military facilities.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Apr 28, 2005 4:45 pm |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | That's why we need to cut down on the number of people and vehicles that we field, as well as closing less important military facilities. |
No, we should NOT cut back on the number of people and vehicles. We need as much as we can.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:01 pm |
|
why? we do not need to "Liberate" any more countries.
Bring back the soldiers, relieve the ones that want out (And trust me when I say there are plenty), Decommission some ships, save what we can including taxpayer money so we can fix DOMESTIC problems.
|
|
|
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:11 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | That's why we need to cut down on the number of people and vehicles that we field, as well as closing less important military facilities. |
No, we should NOT cut back on the number of people and vehicles. We need as much as we can. |
What the goverment should do is cut other programs that is not in the military. So we still save money without risking national security.
*Sarcasm*
If your idea is too save money by cutting the military out we might as well have no military so 'tax payers like you get theirs money worth'
This way no soldiers have to die because no U.S. military exist and your money is not being wasted.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:30 pm |
|
| borgslayer wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | That's why we need to cut down on the number of people and vehicles that we field, as well as closing less important military facilities. |
No, we should NOT cut back on the number of people and vehicles. We need as much as we can. |
What the goverment should do is cut other programs that is not in the military. So we still save money without risking national security.
*Sarcasm*
If your idea is too save money by cutting the military out we might as well have no military so 'tax payers like you get theirs money worth'
This way no soldiers have to die because no U.S. military exist and your money is not being wasted.
|
borg, once again you are RIGHT on this issue. I just don't get, and never will get, this Liberal ideology of cutting our military during a time of WAR and danger for this country. It's crazy.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:35 pm |
|
You're crazy. We're only at war because we keep sending forces into all these countries. I don't want to risk national security either, so let the soldiers stay at home where they can actually defend us instead of other countries.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:40 pm |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | You're crazy. We're only at war because we keep sending forces into all these countries. I don't want to risk national security either, so let the soldiers stay at home where they can actually defend us instead of other countries. |
What the HECK are you smoking? We're not at war simply because we're in Iraq and Afghanistan. Remember September 11th, hmmm? This was a war THRUST UPON US. We didn't start it. We didn't ask for it. It was THRUST UPON US. We are at war, whether we're in Iraq or not.
And you're wrong to think that our soldiers DEFENDING OUR COUNTRY oversees from those who would do us harm HERE are not defending our country.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:53 pm |
|
I remind you of three things. First, September 11th was a response by foreigners to continued United States interference in the Muslim world. Second, Iraq had no direct responsibility for that or any other attack on the U.S. Third, while I agree that we should send our forces upon genuine threats to our safety, I do not agree that the soldiers stationed in most of these countries are doing anything to protect us directly. We need to defend ourselves here. No matter what the reason for their presence, soldiers in Iraq aren't going to be able to stop an attack on American soil. The best defense may be a good offense, but when our government and military isn't even correctly informed, I'd rather we just do the best we can with a defensive defense.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:14 pm |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | I remind you of three things. First, September 11th was a response by foreigners to continued United States interference in the Muslim world. Second, Iraq had no direct responsibility for that or any other attack on the U.S. Third, while I agree that we should send our forces upon genuine threats to our safety, I do not agree that the soldiers stationed in most of these countries are doing anything to protect us directly. We need to defend ourselves here. No matter what the reason for their presence, soldiers in Iraq aren't going to be able to stop an attack on American soil. The best defense may be a good offense, but when our government and military isn't even correctly informed, I'd rather we just do the best we can with a defensive defense. |
1. It was more than that. It was PURE HATRED of America, dislike toward Democracy, and dislike towards our support of Israel and actions in the middle east as a whole. But that does NOT change the fact that it was NOT US who started this war. It was thrust upon us by these evil terrorists.
2. So Iraq had no direct responsability for 9/11. He DID support terrorists and harbored them and would have given them weapons, plus shot at our planes, breaking the Gulf War treaty.
3. We MAY have been misinformed about Iraq, but does that mean that we should not trust our intelligence agencies? What if something is brought up by them, we don't act, and it happens. What then? And we NEED to do an offensive strategy more than anything else, to stop the terrorists from attacking here at HOME.
4. If you're saying that we should do more of a defensive defense, why in the world are you supporting the lessening of the military at home?!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Fri Apr 29, 2005 12:54 am |
|
Funny thing happened today, It seems to go along with this. I have a friend at college, he's been with the military for a year or two now. He's an ammo specialist, meaning he handels and sometimes directly ships the ammunition used in the war. He was all set to go back to college next semester, had his GI Bill approved an everything, even found a place to live.
He was just activated.
And keep in mind, he's an Ammuntion specialist. Guess what he's going over to Iraq to do.... You'll get a laugh out of this.
POSTAL WORK.
great handling of our military.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Fri Apr 29, 2005 12:58 am |
|
I'd be thankful. Clearly that's where he's needed most atm.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:17 am |
|
| Theresa wrote: | Don't know much about the US military, do you? About 40% of the ships are barely "making do". They aren't as state of the art as they'd have you believe. They sometimes have to cannibalize parts from lesser "important" systems, to keep others going. And all systems are "important", or they wouldn't be onboard. Destroyers aren't cargo vessels. ACC aren't, either, though they do carry aircraft. I mean, just what is it you think the 4000+ sailors do? Steer the boat?
As for the nukes, I'd assume we have plenty. Though they do need things for nuclear powered subs, etc... |
I wasn't meaning getting rid of the stuff we have now, or building a certain amount more of it. I was meaning developing new technologies that aren't needed such as bigger nuclear bombs or aircraft carriers. A big problem here in the UK is that the military is expected to do more but gets more cuts every year. I agree with keeping it working, but not wasting money in projects that aren't needed at this time.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:29 am |
|
Yeah, but who are we to decide "necessary"? We clearly don't have all the facts, not even as much as we'd like to think. The only ones who can really make informed decisions are those directly involved.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:49 am |
|
I know that, I'm probably one of the people that make the least fixed decissions because of those reasons. But we don't need more nuclear bombs these days. A problem here in the UK (not sure about the US) is that they use British companies even though there is cheaper and better products out there. It results in massive delays, far more cost and problems with it.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:53 am |
|
Gosh, I agreed w/ the nukes part,
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Seven of Nine
Sammie's Mammy
Joined: 16 Jun 2001
Posts: 7871
Location: North East England
|
| Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:43 am |
|
One question... is it expensive to ship old ships from the US to the UK to be dismantled? Surely it would cost less to do it in the US, and also create jobs there, rather than having to tow them the the UK, get all sorts of exemptions to our laws made, just so some US military ships can be dismantled. Maybe you could save money that way.
As for closing the military bases... maybe they shouldn't just close them, but move them if it's possible, so the money is going where it's needed, and all places have adaquate security. Maybe that's too difficult to do, but I don't have much knowledge of the US military to say anything really but don't build more nukes
|
|
|
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Sat Apr 30, 2005 10:57 pm |
|
Moving bases means spend more money. Because you can't simply move a base you have to create one first before you get things operational.
As I have suggested the U.S. should never cut the military they should only cut other programs that are not in the military.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun May 01, 2005 12:13 pm |
|
| borgslayer wrote: | Moving bases means spend more money. Because you can't simply move a base you have to create one first before you get things operational.
As I have suggested the U.S. should never cut the military they should only cut other programs that are not in the military. |
Exactly. Do somewhat like what Reagan did. The reason the deficit was so high was:
A) Democrats in Congress spending too much on social programs
B) Reagan spending a lot on defense.
He eventually managed to cut the budget and put priority on defense. And what happened to the Soviet Union? Defense should be our top priority.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Fri May 13, 2005 10:28 am |
|
| Quote: | 33 Major U.S. Bases Would Close Under Plan
By LIZ SIDOTI
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon proposed Friday shutting about 180 military installations from Maine to Hawaii including 33 major bases, triggering the first round of base closures in a decade and an intense struggle by communities to save their facilities.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld also recommended a list of scores of other domestic installations - including 29 major bases - that will remain open but with thousands fewer troops. Dozens of others will gain troops from other domestic or foreign bases.
Overall, he has said his plan would save $48.8 billion over 20 years while making the military more mobile and better suited for the global effort against terrorism.
Rumsfeld's proposal calls for a massive shift of U.S. forces that would result in a net loss of 29,005 military and civilian jobs at domestic installations. Overall, he proposes pulling 218,570 military and civilian positions out of some U.S. bases while adding 189,565 positions to others, according to documents obtained by The AP.
The closures and downsizings would occur over six years starting in 2006.
``Our current arrangements, designed for the Cold War, must give way to the new demands of the war against extremism and other evolving 21st Century challenges,'' Rumsfeld said in a written statement.
Among the major closures were Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico, which would lose more than 2,700 jobs, the Naval Station in Ingleside, Texas, costing more than 2,100 jobs, and Fort McPherson in Georgia, costing nearly 4,200 jobs.
Other major bases - including the Army's Fort Bliss in Texas, the Naval Shipyard in Norfolk, Va., and Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland - would see gains, as they absorb troops whose current home bases are slated for closure.
Before closures or downsizings can take effect, the Defense Department's proposal must be approved or changed by a federal base closing commission by Sept. 8, and then agreed to by Congress and President Bush, in a process that will run into the fall.
In four previous rounds of closures starting in 1988, commissions have accepted 85 percent of bases the Pentagon recommended for closure or consolidation. However, the current commission's chairman, Anthony Principi, has promised not to rubber stamp Rumsfeld's list.
One major closure Rumsfeld seeks is Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota, home to 29 B-1B bombers, half the nation's fleet of the aircraft, and the state's second largest employer.
Republican freshman Sen. John Thune on Friday called the Pentagon ``flat wrong'' about Ellsworth, and he vowed to help lead the fight in the Senate to delay the entire round of closures. ``We will continue to keep Ellsworth open,'' Thune said.
Rumsfeld also recommended closing the Naval Station in Pascagoula, Miss., which barely survived previous base closure rounds. The decision was a blow to Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., who had fought the 1995 round of closures. At stake are 844 military jobs and 112 civilian jobs.
New England took a major hit, and Connecticut suffered the biggest loss in terms of jobs with the proposed closure of the Submarine Base in New London, Conn. Shuttering the installation would result in the loss of 7,096 military jobs and 952 civilian jobs.
Another facility that barely made it through the previous rounds but showed up on the latest hit list was Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine, whose shutdown would affect 201 military jobs and 4,032 civilian jobs.
President Bush's home state wasn't immune from the chopping block. Texas is slated to lose 15 facilities. In addition to Naval Station Ingleside, the Red River Army Depot and several Reserve and Guard installations are on the hit list.
New Jersey's Fort Monmouth is also slated for closure, triggering an angered Democratic Rep. Rush Holt to vow to ``Fight like hell to change it. I'm not about to let the Pentagon's error put the fort and the soldiers it serves in harm's way.''
Pennsylvania would lose 13 facilities, including the Naval Air Station at Willow Grove, while Alabama and California - the state hit hardest in the previous four rounds of closures - are to see 11 installations apiece shuttered, mostly affecting Reserve and Guard units and Defense Department accounting offices. New York is to lose nine.
Base closings represent a high-stakes political fight, because they affect jobs in congressional districts.
When a U.S. military installation shuts down, its officers and their families are uprooted and relocated to facilities elsewhere, leaving holes in customer bases of local businesses.
``Affected communities will be offered support and assistance through the Office of Economic Adjustment following the completion of the process,'' Michael Wynne, the Pentagon's technology chief said at a briefing on the recommendations.
Nevertheless, targeted communities, with their well-being on the line, are expected to harness the efforts of lawmakers, local civic officials and hired lobbyists, as well as base commanders themselves, to try to convince the commission to keep their facilities up and running.
For years, the military has operated more bases than it needs for the 1.4 million troops on active duty. Congress has refused to authorize a new round of base closings since 1995 but reluctantly signed off on the idea last year after President Bush threatened to veto an entire spending bill.
Lawmakers say it is unwise to close bases while U.S. troops are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the Pentagon argues that the timing is perfect to enlist cost-cutting measures given pressures from the ballooning federal deficit and to reshuffle the stateside network of bases while it reshapes the entire military.
Closures in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995 eliminated or realigned 451 installations, including 97 major ones, resulted in a net savings to the government of about $18 billion through 2001. The Pentagon projects recurring annual savings of $7.3 billion from those four rounds combined.
On the Net:
Defense Department at http://www.defenselink.mil
05/13/05 11:01
� Copyright The Associated Press.
|
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri May 13, 2005 5:09 pm |
|
Very, VERY bad news. This is one of the few DISMAL failures of the Bush administration. I thought defense was first? Well, with the border situation, and now this, it's obviously POLITICS first. Say it ain't so, Mr. Bush. Say it ain't so.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Fri May 13, 2005 6:15 pm |
|
The base closures does not close major military bases. It just closes almost all the reserve centers, and military financing centers. Also closes many air guard stations.
Thats about it. I don't think it will affect us that much.
http://www.foxnews.com
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri May 13, 2005 6:26 pm |
|
| borgslayer wrote: | The base closures does not close major military bases. It just closes almost all the reserve centers, and military financing centers. Also closes many air guard stations.
Thats about it. I don't think it will affect us that much.
http://www.foxnews.com |
Are you sure about that? I just watched FOX News a bit ago and they said that it would close some bigger military bases, quite major.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
