Bush boasts Base closure benefits

J

Jffal

New member
The $ will be spent elsewhere so how will they be saved, especially when the administration doesn't have to initiate BRAC in order to fund the "War on Terror"? The goal still appears to be to reduce the number of warm bodies and boots within the military, an objective some critics suggested has caused tremendous difficulties and increased casualties when attempting to police nations where the population is infected by asymetrical enemy forces. Also, there will be a delay, in many instances a considerable one, before some of these facilities are shutdown, reduced or otherwise affected and "savings" is achieved. Which means that BRAC generated funds for the "War" might not be immediatly forthcoming.

Again, some critics might wonder about the BRAC dating back, as with some of its highest profile advocates, right to the Bush Sr. administration, an era when the Twin Towers still stood and there were different policies toward terrorists. BRAC wasn't tied into a War on Terror back in the day and it is quite cynical and manipulative to tie it in now.

Jeff

Bush: Money Being Wasted on Unneeded Bases (phillyBurbs.com)
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/26-05272005-495147.html
 
I don't know. America is going down the tubes fast.

I live in NH and I am baffled at the decision to close the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard... they have the fastest turn around time and consistently get project done on time and budget. The DAY BEFORE the list came out they recieved a commendation for being the best.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Why would we leave ourselves with only one sub base on the atlantic?

When America falls I will not be suprised.
 
Why would we leave ourselves with only one sub base on the atlantic?
Click to expand...
The bigger question is, why close Groton? The sub base there has the Naval Submarine School, for pete's sake. If one should go, it should be Kings Bay (AKA the Jimmy Carter Memorial Submarine Base). If I was cynical, I would bet that it is because the Georgia congressional delegation is bigger and would fight the list (which must be voted on in its entirety).

On the other hand, the list that was published was the commission's recommendation, not Congress'. There may be other non-political factors at play in this decision which we are unaware of.
 
The bigger question is, why close Groton? The sub base there has the Naval Submarine School, for pete's sake.
Click to expand...
Well, if I was on the commission I'd get every base I could out of New England.

Commienecticutt is dripping with people that would rat this country out in a heartbeat. Secondly there seems to be some issue with the amount of water depth the SeaWolf requires to navigate, and Groton may not fit the bill. Third the buzz in some of the bubblehead (Submariners for the non-salty types) community is about more "forward" deployments in other parts of the world.

Not to mention that Groton is a little on the infamous side for having security problems. At least part of that can be attributed to the fact that the base is in the middle of some pretty high population density. The most ultra-secret weapons in the fleet need and deserve a more suitable location.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • New London Area.jpg
    New London Area.jpg
    46.9 KB · Views: 137
In a speech to graduates of the Naval Academy, he said the closings and realignments "will result in a military that is more efficient and better prepared so you can better protect the American people against the dangers of this new century."
Click to expand...
Specifically what "dangers of the new century"?
"In this war, there is only one option and that is victory," he said, to cheers from midshipmen, relatives and faculty at the academy on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay.
Click to expand...
The perpetual war for perpetual peace? And how is "vistory" defined in "this war"? The "erradication terrorism"?

No such thing possible - so what is he talking about?
"Show courage, and not just on the battlefield. Pursue the possibilities others tell you do not exist," he said
Click to expand...
I suppose that depends who the "others" are; perhaps he is referring retrospectively to British Intelligence.
"The opponents of change are many and its champions are few, but the champions of change are the ones who make history. Be champions, and you'll make America safer for your children and your grandchildren, and you'll add to the character of our nation
Click to expand...
Safer? Add character to the nation? Tabloid stuff.

If George W Bush wants to save some public money and make the nation safer he ought to use his executive pen; stop giving our money away completely, and start using it to secure our borders and purge those who should not be here. That would be a start. As it is, his nose has long surpassed Pinocchio.
 
No, the eradication of terrorism is not possible. The phenomenon of organised, well-funded, terrorist groups is something special, though. It's possible for a lone nut or small group of extremists to go and organise an act of terrorism. You will never solve that.

Big, funded, organised groups that seek violence do have a solution. That solution is the application of violence to, and the destruction of said groups.
 
Big, funded, organised groups that seek violence do have a solution. That solution is the application of violence to, and the destruction of said groups.
Click to expand...
This presupposes that these are something new. They are certainly not, and go back centuries. What is new is the idea that a "war" can be waged against them and "won". Which as well as being new is completely false; and George Pinnochio Bush and his cronies at home and abroad know it full well.

It is akin to saying that the big drug cartels and the corruption in governments that protect and profit from them can be "erradicated" and the "war on drugs" turn some kind of ending "victory".

These monkeys can not (or perhaps do not want to) even stamp out domestic organized crime - and they are going to "win a war" against "terrorism"?

Wake up. They are not telling the truth.
 
As a matter of fact, LAK, multinatoinal oversized terrorist organizations are a rather new event - unless you count the Russian Narodnaya Volya, and that was crushed mercilessly by the Russians.
 
My brother is in Groton as a sub officer. There are no houses to buy, except for a few at the half million mark.

Does this sound like a good place to ask enlisted men to live?


Lots of things drive these decisions. Many of them even make sense.
 
Another good point, Handy. Move that damn school! If Fort Stewart is good enough for the Army, Kings Bay will be good enough for the Navy.
 
MicroBalrog
As a matter of fact, LAK, multinatoinal oversized terrorist organizations are a rather new event - unless you count the Russian Narodnaya Volya, and that was crushed mercilessly by the Russians
Click to expand...
They are as old as organized crime and their overlap with governments. Nothing new.
 
when did the mafia fly fully laden airplanes into civilian targets again?

now, I am not able to make any conclusion of the fitness of any particular base. However, it is obvious that the current system is poor ( witness the strain on our military with one and a half relatively minor "wars ).

I would, however, like to see the reduction/elimination of bases in unfriendly territory, such as Germany/France/etc.
 
LAK,

Stop dancing around this. Please name one of these ancient multi-national terrorist organizations you're hinting about.

And organized crime doesn't count - most mafiosos are, if anything, patriotic and rely on stability.
 
k_dawg,

"Frankly, we can't differentiate between terrorism and organized crime and drug dealing" - Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff, Senate Banking Committee hearings (money trail of the 9/11 attacks)
Click to expand...

And all this "just started" with the planning of the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon right? ;)
 
Handy,

Mafia 101; mafiosos are not exclusively national. They have had ties to their homelands since their beginnings; and their operations have not ceased to cross national borders.

You should tell Mr Chertoff to stop "dancing around" while you're at it. And perhaps he should have included the term "some people in some of the most seemingly unlikely governments" in his brief summary of the tangled web.

This stuff is old hat. Very old hat indeed. As old as the drug trade, organized crime itself - and many governments in history.

Some more recent historical examples are the British government's opium war against China and Cecil Rhode's failed attempt to stir up the Uitlanders and the Jameson Raid in 1895. More recent is the burning of the Reichstag - just one event organized by the Nazi Party in their rise to power. There was "Operation Suzannah" - also known as the "Lavon Affair" (after Israeli Defense Minister Pinhas Lavon). And since that time the so-called "Hamas" has been linked to Israel’s Likud party. There is our own (very well articulated by General Lyman Lemnitzer) "Operation Northwoods". And so on.

Trying to dance around the truth when it is staring you in the face is exactly what people are doing when they make excuses for Mr. Pinnochio Bush and his merry band of cronies. Their own words betray them - a mix of truth (when it suits them or they have no choice), half-truths, outright falsehoods intermingled with alot of tabloid newspeak.

Sorry if you have trouble seeing through all this with some historical retrospect; but in this case, Michael Chertoff - now Secretary of Homeland Security - has spelled it out for you in the present tense.
 
LAK,

Your misquoting. He was not saying that organized crime IS terrorism. He was saying that terrorists had taken part in organized crime to provide funding. Presuming that mafia knew and approved of their business partner's ultimate aims is just that; presumption.


Hamas, for instance, is an excellent example of NOT what we're talking about. They confine themselves to a small geographic area and are "working" toward a specific national goal. Despite our role in Israel, they don't even attack us, let alone Spain.
 
In other news, terrorists use our oxygen supply in order to go on living, so let's put "legislative controls" oxygen and initiate a crackdown.
 
Handy
Your misquoting. He was not saying that organized crime IS terrorism. He was saying that terrorists had taken part in organized crime to provide funding. Presuming that mafia knew and approved of their business partner's ultimate aims is just that; presumption.
Click to expand...
No; he was speaking before the Senate Banking Committee concerning the money trail. The lines between the three on international levels do not exist.

What part of "we can not differentiate" do you not understand?

This is nothing new; it has been used to destabilize countries, regions and oust leaders. It has been done in SE Asia, all over Africa, South and Central America and other places going back to the 1800s. Money from the drug trade in various forms, arms smuggling, and instigated "unrest". Organized crime has been in the drug trade from the getgo. The idea that all they've even done is run brothels, casinos and protection rackets is a Hollywood construction.

Hamas, for instance, is an excellent example of NOT what we're talking about. They confine themselves to a small geographic area and are "working" toward a specific national goal. Despite our role in Israel, they don't even attack us, let alone Spain.
Click to expand...
"Hamas" get their operating money from somewhere; not just the jumpstart they received from the Likud party.

They don't get it passing the hat around in trendy cafes in Beirut. They have raised money through the drug trade; not just in the Middle East, but places like here in the United States and Europe. The so-called "Hezbollah" also funds "Hamas", and "Hezbollah" get money from the drug trade, smuggling, fraud and other organized criminal endeavours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top