Pages

 

Recent Pages by Skip Intro:
Trump Partner in Running for New FBI Building - ABC2News.com Plot to Kill Muslims in Kansas Was Foreseen in Report on Right-Wing Extremism That Politicians Slammed Donald Trump's Candidacy Is a Threat to American Democracy The Man Who Showed Donald Trump How to Exploit Power and Instill Fear Too Good to Be True? Dick Morris Might Join the Trump Campaign

Jump to bottom

17 comments

1 jc717  Tue, Feb 25, 2014 5:52:00pm

Hmmm, choices, choices… Help feed struggling families in the US or buy a bunch of tanks that will rust in the desert without seeing action, or a bunch of air superiority fighters that will never see a dog fight, or keep maintaining golf courses for army brass in some of the most prime real-estate in Japan? Tough call, not!

2 Kragar  Tue, Feb 25, 2014 6:11:51pm

Apparently a stronger military only means making sure you pay defense contractors for overpriced weapon systems that don’t work as opposed to making sure you take care of the actual troops.

3 mechanic  Tue, Feb 25, 2014 7:01:44pm

support for our troops
Mr. Cheney wouldn’t even support the honor of a public viewing for our dead troops caskets when they came back from Iraq or Afghanistan and he and George Bush gave up on hunting down bin Laden after they’d killed 3,000 at the WTC. This 90 million dollar man is morally rotten at the core. Is he a psychopath in his disregard for common human life?

4 nines09  Tue, Feb 25, 2014 7:05:20pm

So the Dark Load Lord must stand to lose money somewhere. Hey, Dick! A deficit is nothing to worry about! Go fall down a flight of steps somewhere.

5 Fairly Sure I'm Still Obdicut  Tue, Feb 25, 2014 7:40:29pm

So would I.

6 Shiplord Kirel  Tue, Feb 25, 2014 9:55:19pm

I’m not sure what Darth thinks qualifies him to hold forth on these issues, but it would not be his own military experience (none) or his demonstrated proficiency with weapons (shot a lawyer during a hunting trip).

7 Wendell Zurkowitz (slave to the waffle light)  Wed, Feb 26, 2014 12:20:48am

We need more horses and bayonets!

8 BadgerB  Wed, Feb 26, 2014 4:49:21am

There was a time when “Guns or Butter” was a theoretical way to frame the discussion of the balance between domestic and military priorities, today…

9 iossarian  Wed, Feb 26, 2014 7:12:36am

re: #2 Kragar

Apparently a stronger military only means making sure you pay defense contractors for overpriced weapon systems that don’t work as opposed to making sure you take care of the actual troops.

Yeah, but Dick only gets rich from the former, so his logic kind of makes sense.

10 [deleted]  Wed, Feb 26, 2014 7:13:04am
11 ausador  Wed, Feb 26, 2014 9:41:58am

re: #10 BusyMonster

The majority of your comments always seem to involve fucking someone in one orifice or another, perhaps you need a girlfriend/boyfriend in order to work off some of your sexual tension?

12 lawhawk  Wed, Feb 26, 2014 10:02:16am

The Defense Department wants to reduce the number of bases it has, but Congress wont go for it, because it might mean some member of Congress or some Senator would lose jobs/economic opportunities, so they fight it.

BRAC is the solution to reduce the number of bases that are deemed surplus by the DoD itself. As the DoD moves to fewer troops and more automation, you don’t need the facilities that we have, or have to adjust them to address what kind of training, operations, logistics, etc., are needed.

Bases are one part of the puzzle.

The next is that the DoD is expecting to reduce troop numbers, again as part of shifting to more tech, that allows fewer troops to do the same as or more than the same number of troops did previously.

Just as a single B-52 can carry more ordnance to target (and hit it) than an entire squadron of B-38s did a generation ago, or dozens upon dozens of B-17s or B-29s before that, the ability to do more with fewer troops has been a hallmark of technological advances.

That tech doesn’t come cheap, but the cost savings are considerable when you factor in that a soldier requires training, pay, and pension/health benefits for their life. Reducing the number of troops can enable the military to spend more elsewhere (or meet sequester/budget needs).

But there’s also the technology itself. The F-35 and F-22 programs are a mess, and they’re likely to be hangar queens, and not nearly as capable as doing close air support as a plane that costs a fraction of their acquisition cost - the A-10 II. The Navy’s got a mess on its hands with the LCS program, and it remains to be seen whether it can deliver the cost efficiencies that it expects on the Ford carrier program.

Or tanks like the M1A2, which while being the best at what they do, are too heavy to handle certain combat situations that the US military is likely to face, but yet Congress wants to spend money on improvements that the Army doesn’t want or need - all to keep a factory operating.

It comes down to jobs and economic opportunities, but of a particular sort. Government spending is okay when it’s done for military outcomes, but investing the same money to build roads, bridges, tunnels, or mass transit get blown off. That has to change.

The military needs an appropriate level of spending to address threats, so hearing the GOP squawk that the Democrats are weak on defense all for pointing out the obvious doesn’t ring true.

13 Charles Johnson  Wed, Feb 26, 2014 10:10:19am

re: #10 BusyMonster

You need to tone down these comments. You’re going way over the line. Continuing to post offensive rants like this will get your account suspended.

14 RadicalModerate  Wed, Feb 26, 2014 11:55:15am

To make his point, Cheney decides to go with the dog whistle. Really, really classy there.

15 EPR-radar  Wed, Feb 26, 2014 11:58:33am

re: #8 BadgerB

There was a time when “Guns or Butter” was a theoretical way to frame the discussion of the balance between domestic and military priorities, today…

I think Guns or Butter has always been more practical than theoretical, even going back long before the founding of the US.

FWIW, my opinion is that the US defense budget could use at least a 50% cut before we start talking about defense cuts and non-defense cuts in the same breath.

16 Slap  Wed, Feb 26, 2014 11:58:38am

Now, what administration was it that started 2 UNFUNDED wars, essentially raiding the Treasury to do so? Hmm, lemme think….

17 ausador  Wed, Feb 26, 2014 2:12:39pm

re: #16 Slap

Now, what administration was it that started 2 UNFUNDED wars, essentially raiding the Treasury to do so? Hmm, lemme think….

I’m pretty sure it was the same one that created “medicare part D prescription coverage” without any additional funding source and therefore greatly hastened the eventual depletion of the Medicare/caid reserve. But as we have all seen, IOKIYAR. :(


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh