I don't support the troops

[Syterion]

You would have screwed these up a lot worse than Nixon and Clinton did, mister.

Maybe you didn't get the point of my whole post about Obama knowing what he knows. It's this: that your current opinion is the result of knowing next to nothing about the real world. If you became President (I'd say "God forbid" at this point, but I'm an atheist), you would change your tune real fast. Obama did. As have most other Presidents.

You never answered my question about that. I didn't explicitly quote your name though, sorry about that.

Can you please tell me how you have gained knowledge equal to that of the President's?

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

<snip> Moderator Action: Good bye then.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[JollyRoger]

As to the OP, there are plenty of places we could cut military spending. A lot of services handled by military personnel could be privatized.

 

[BasketCase]

Can you please tell me how you have gained knowledge equal to that of the President's?

Not equal to the President's. But definitely greater than yours or FriendlyFire's. I already demonstrated this simply by being aware that the President has access to vast information resources. Something you and FriendlyFire were not aware of. As Rumsfeld put it: I know what I don't know.

/meh at least u didnt use a star trek as an example to back your point.

God dammit. Can't believe I forgot that.

"The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank!"

-- Scotty​

There's a man who supports the troops.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

 

[yellow_peril]

But Japan is as good or better than us for a bit under 1/2. That's my target.

Well, maybe its because...Japanese people are naturally healthier than Americans. Just a thought.

 

[warpus]

I support the Canadian troops in Afghanistan, as well as the Polish troops in Poland.

 

[Shekwan]

He posted the address to some Gay Bar (I googled the address). So he is BSing, unless he hangs out there.

If I was going to kick your ass I would do it outside a gay bar too. I think you're just using it as an excuse to not turn up. All talk.

You would probably be surprised how many potentially huge wars are kept in check by American ability and willingness to project power - Taiwan and China are held apart by the US' lack of a clear position, and a serious war in the middle east has probably been prevented by US backing of Israel.

A war over Taiwan would only be potentially huge because the Americans are involved in the first place.

As for the Middle East, the US only started seriously supporting Israel since 1967. Israel's position as the regional hegemon was secure by the end of the Six Days war, they utterly destroyed all regional contenders. Attacking Israel today would be insane, Americans or not. Nukes > all.

American military spending is obviously way too big.

 

[MobBoss]

Obama's healthcare bill once its passed tomorrow will have created 1.2 trillion dollars in savings by 2020 and 138 billion over the next 10 years. So the military cut while it would be good, isn't really required.

Can you point me to a government spending program that actually came in on budget and actually saved anything?

Government programs tend to overspend, cost more, bloat, and then experience large amounts of fraud once the exploitable holes are found.

I predict the same with Obamacare (if it survives challenges in the courts).

As to cutting the military....no. To quote one of those Romans from the total war games (paraphrased): 'He that does not prepare for war, ensures it.'

The most expensive part of our defense budget is R&D and procurement. Essentially, we are always in an R&D cycle so that we have the most technilogically advanced military in the world. As a soldier, I happen to think thats a very good thing.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. Dwight D. Eisenhower

I like the one about witty saying the most, Voltaire I think.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I am all for only giving our combat soldiers weapons similar to those of their opponents while removing their free education and special healthcare programs all at taxpayer expense. Then let's see how many will volunteer to serve in frequently illegal and immoral wars.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

In war, truth is the first casualty.
Aeschylus

 

[illram]

The phrase "Support the Troops" is modern propaganda. These days it means "support US Foreign Policy."

Obviously people "support" the troops in that we hope our soldiers don't die, don't get injured, etc. etc., but since the phrase is so intentionally misused these days I am instantly suspicious of anyone who asks "do you support the troops?"

 

[MobBoss]

I am all for only giving our combat soldiers weapons similar to those of their opponents while removing their free education and special healthcare programs all at taxpayer expense. Then let's see how many will volunteer to serve in frequently illegal and immoral wars.

Wouldnt you want your soldiers to have better weapons than their opponents?

I would.

What 'free education' are you referring to?

What 'special healthcare' programs are you referring to?

Can you show me people that volunteer because the wars are (in your opinion) 'frequently illegal and immoral'?

I dont really think thats a big recruiting point to be honest.

Also, it makes no sense at all to depend on a volunteer force and then make it undesireable to volunteer. Yeah...thats a real winning strategy to having a competent military.

Point being, it behooves liberals and conservatives alike to have a strong and prepared military.

 

[Flying Pig]

The phrase "Support the Troops" is modern propaganda. These days it means "support US Foreign Policy."

In this country we have Help for Heroes (and other charities, mostly based around the same or ARRSE, which is an online community of mostly soldiers) whose motto is, basically: 'we don't care if Private Atkins was injured fighting Jesus or Hitler, we'll help him just the same'. They're inspiring people; I recently made them my cause when I run the marathon

 

[Aegis]

As to cutting the military....no. To quote one of those Romans from the total war games (paraphrased): 'He that does not prepare for war, ensures it.'

I prefer "Sic vis pacem, para bellum."

There is "prepare for war" and then there is "spend more money on the military than every other nation on the planet, combined."

 

[Cutlass]

Well, maybe its because...Japanese people are naturally healthier than Americans. Just a thought.

They are thinner than Americans, but they drink and smoke a great deal heavier than Americans. And they have a very high pressure society. I'd call that a wash.

 

[Flying Pig]

I prefer "Sic vis pacem, para bellum."

There is "prepare for war" and then there is "spend more money on the military than every other nation on the planet, combined."

Motto of the Royal Navy. They have a point - if you look at the UK, there's little to seperate them from Italy except that we have the second most powerful navy and within the top five overall militaries in the world with nuclear weapons and they don't. Look at our relative influences on the world stage.

 

[illram]

In this country we have Help for Heroes (and other charities, mostly based around the same or ARRSE, which is an online community of mostly soldiers) whose motto is, basically: 'we don't care if Private Atkins was injured fighting Jesus or Hitler, we'll help him just the same'. They're inspiring people; I recently made them my cause when I run the marathon

Which is great. The troops should be supported in that way, i.e. veterans benefits, moral support, medical care, etc. etc. I just find that the phrase "support the troops" is all too often abused to mean support for the mission they're being ordered to accomplish. E.g. if you're against funding the Iraq war you do not "support the troops," which is completely false.

 

[Aegis]

Motto of the Royal Navy. They have a point - if you look at the UK, there's little to seperate them from Italy except that we have the second most powerful navy and within the top five overall militaries in the world with nuclear weapons and they don't. Look at our relative influences on the world stage.

All I am saying is that there is plenty of room for the US to cut military spending without becoming a weakling. I was exaggerating before about how much we spend, but we still spend twice what the second most powerful nation (China) does.

RRW mentioned that a large portion of that spending goes into R&D, but I argue that a larger portion of it goes to maintaining our hundreds of bases worldwide (and the accompanying payoff to the host nation whom allows us to be there in the first place). We don't really need our fleet of super carriers out there, either.

Which is great. The troops should be supported in that way, i.e. veterans benefits, moral support, medical care, etc. etc. I just find that the phrase "support the troops" is all too often abused to mean support for the mission they're being ordered to accomplish. E.g. if you're against funding the Iraq war you do not "support the troops," which is completely false.

I have always interpreted it to mean that we want for our troops to have the supplies and gear which they need to return home safely, regardless of what the mission is. People do twist it for propaganda purposes, though, that much is true.