Quantcast

Defense Budget Cuts Too Much?

sodabox 2012/08/07 02:07:47
Related Topics: Budget Cuts, Budget
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • t.eliot, topbard 2012/08/07 20:00:30
    No
    t.eliot, topbard
    +1
    Not nearly enough.
  • RogerCoppock 2012/08/07 06:46:22
    No
    RogerCoppock
    +1
    CONSIDER:

    A decade after Romney and the Republicans take control, no one in the 99% will want to fight for this country. So, why buy weapons for a cause that no one will fight for?
  • poet4justice 2012/08/07 04:34:00
    No
    poet4justice
    +1
    they should be cut more
  • dallasjoe 2012/08/07 03:58:51
    Wait
    dallasjoe
    +1
    Unify all services cut the admin costs by 1/4 and the cost of Uniforms would also be a savings. Just the defense forces of America
  • Z 2012/08/07 03:12:59
    Wait
    Z
    It should be first recognized that we spend as much as we do because there isn't anyone else willing to do what we do. We have made a lot of military blunders in the past (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Kuwait, Vietnam, Korea, World War 1, the Spanish American war.), but we currently hold the positions of world peace keeper, protector of the western hemisphere, and the only significant military force in Nato. Now, I'm all for cutting the military (though not using that money for anything other than to eliminate the property tax all together), but we have to understand why we spend as much as we do.

    When we start to make significant cuts to our defense policy, people will die. That is an undeniable fact. We patrol, protect and secure many countries and borders throughout the world, and it will take time for other countries to pick up their own slack. Mean while, terrorists, murders and criminals will move through, wars will start, and people will die. Are you willing to make that cut? These aren't scare tactics, these are legitimate concerns that need to be understood going into it. I'm fine with this decision, since the longer we wait, the worse it will get. But most people aren't.
  • sodabox Z 2012/08/07 11:48:32
    sodabox
    You have drank the Kool-Aid.
  • Z sodabox 2012/08/07 16:57:24
    Z
    In what way? The fact that, while I hold the same foreign policy as most other libertarians, I am more realistic about the short term results that will occur from it?
  • sodabox Z 2012/08/08 13:09:22
    sodabox
    We don't need to be the world's policeman. They resent it and hate us for it and we cannot afford it. A coalition of countries is more effective anyway.
  • Z sodabox 2012/08/09 03:25:41
    Z
    Okay? Did you actually read my post, because it seems like you didn't.

    "Now, I'm all for cutting the military (though not using that money for anything other than to eliminate the property tax all together), but we have to understand why we spend as much as we do."

    As in, I support cutting the military, but I believe we have to recognize what WILL happen when we do, otherwise we will bring it right back when things get bad for a few years. Nothing suddenly gets better overnight.
  • sodabox Z 2012/08/09 14:23:00 (edited)
    sodabox
    I did read it and I got from you, "you think the USA needs to be the world's police man" Did I get it wrong? What is it you think will happen if we bring all the troops home? I think things will get MUCH better if we do. I think you believe the sky will fall.
  • Z sodabox 2012/08/09 14:34:29
    Z
    I think you clearly didn't read my post. Please, don't quote mine my statements. What you took that from says:

    "We have made a lot of military blunders in the past (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Kuwait, Vietnam, Korea, World War 1, the Spanish American war.), but we currently hold the positions of world peace keeper, protector of the western hemisphere, and the only significant military force in Nato."

    It was a statement of fact, not of preference. Nowhere in there did I say that we should be the peace keepers. My next five sentences pointed out the outcome of military cuts for the short term. To believe that things will instantly get better because of it is naive at best, idiotic at worst. The animosity we have accumulated from our foreign occupations won't suddenly dry up, Al Qaeda won't suddenly stop hating us for our constant interference in their affairs. They will still be angry. When they fail to attack us because we are using our much smaller military budget for the sole purpose of national defense instead of world peace keeping, They will attack other.

    After about 10-20 years, things will calm down considerably. It will be a long term benefit, but telling people it will suddenly get better the moment we pull out is like saying that everything is going to get better the moment we f...

    I think you clearly didn't read my post. Please, don't quote mine my statements. What you took that from says:

    "We have made a lot of military blunders in the past (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Kuwait, Vietnam, Korea, World War 1, the Spanish American war.), but we currently hold the positions of world peace keeper, protector of the western hemisphere, and the only significant military force in Nato."

    It was a statement of fact, not of preference. Nowhere in there did I say that we should be the peace keepers. My next five sentences pointed out the outcome of military cuts for the short term. To believe that things will instantly get better because of it is naive at best, idiotic at worst. The animosity we have accumulated from our foreign occupations won't suddenly dry up, Al Qaeda won't suddenly stop hating us for our constant interference in their affairs. They will still be angry. When they fail to attack us because we are using our much smaller military budget for the sole purpose of national defense instead of world peace keeping, They will attack other.

    After about 10-20 years, things will calm down considerably. It will be a long term benefit, but telling people it will suddenly get better the moment we pull out is like saying that everything is going to get better the moment we figure out a more sustainable fuel source.

    Please do not make assumptions. It really just causes you to piss off people who agree with you on the course of action, if not the immediate outcome.
    (more)
  • sodabox Z 2012/08/10 12:23:36
    sodabox
    Depends on how we pull out and what we do after we pull out. Sometimes an apology can go a long way.
  • Z sodabox 2012/08/10 16:48:59
    Z
    I doubt an apology, no matter how sincere, will erase 60 years of murder, political overthrow and interventionism. I suspect the best option is simply to pull out, cut the military in half and use the rest to protect our borders. After that, we can cut it more and more over time.
  • EdVenture 2012/08/07 02:40:14
    Wait
    EdVenture
    How could anyone really know aside from someone with access to the expenditures which likely includes funding from other resources that are drawn from general accounts? Not an informative assessment IMO.
  • ☆stillthe12c☆ 2012/08/07 02:36:33
    Yes
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    They are, but cuts need to be made. Next they need to get rid of the money that is wasted on education and student loans and all kinds of other worthless programs. The add campaign running in mexico about the new welfare benefits here. Get rid of the TSA and let private enterprise do that job just as they do in San Fransisco. There are hundreds if not 1000 of programs that could be eliminated.
  • dallasjoe ☆stillt... 2012/08/07 04:02:01
    dallasjoe
    Should be also elimate Forgien Aid and The GI Bil, NASA Merchant marine and teh Six Academies that support like 40 vessels
  • ☆stillt... dallasjoe 2012/08/07 04:16:12
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    I'll go along with foreign aid.
  • dallasjoe ☆stillt... 2012/08/07 22:43:34
    dallasjoe
    +1
    unify the services no more Rivalies no more slight changes and added costs for weapons syslems save a BUNCH
  • ☆stillt... dallasjoe 2012/08/07 22:58:47
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    There can be some saving there as each service decides how each purchased is equipped. Many of the aircraft have so many changes made for each branch of service it really drives up the cost. I understand that each branch has different requirements but I think they go over board at times. Each branch of service is trained for different types of jobs and responsibilities. They might be able to put the AirForce back under the US Army.
  • dallasjoe ☆stillt... 2012/08/07 23:05:24
    dallasjoe
    +1
    and the marines disbanded the Army can do the Division size jobs and the SEALS the rest
  • ☆stillt... dallasjoe 2012/08/07 23:13:47
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    The seals are not large enough. I am pretty sure they will not expand as the are very fussy about who the train. My neighbor is a Seal. He is going some where nest week to do some training of some commandos.
  • dallasjoe ☆stillt... 2012/08/08 01:10:42
    dallasjoe
    +1
    we do not need the Marines anymore well except to open doors at the White House the 1947 act that took the Air Corp from the Army said thta only they would have helicopters then all the othere forces wanted them Army should have held their ground
  • ☆stillt... dallasjoe 2012/08/08 01:55:02
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    Thank You that is good information
  • VICTORIA 2012/08/07 02:19:58
    No
    VICTORIA
    +1
    GOD NO
  • lurx: the soda jerk 2012/08/07 02:17:55
    No
    lurx: the soda jerk
    +3


    ...stop the madness.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/11/23 07:31:42

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals