Would Obama Disarm the Military?

During a peace you should prepare for next war.
Click to expand...
We Americans currently fund the military to the tune of spending as much as the next 30 countries added together.

Yes, that's taking military spender number two through military spender number 31 and adding their individual totals together, then comparing that amount with what the US government spends.

We don't just have waste in the sense of trimming the fat from a piece of beef with military spending, we have a gargantuan squandering of the wealth of America, pouring that wealth into the pockets of a connected few.

The US government active duty military needs a huge reduction, in both numbers of personnel and with equipment. About 90% ought to do it.

Gargantua.
Gustave_Dor__Gargantua-vi.jpg
 
Yep Obama would disarm the military hand over the country to islamic extremist, because you know after all he is a muslim.

Its all true, I read it on the internet. :rolleyes:
 
Redworm said:
Every single one of those is a damn good idea. There's no reason to be building more aircraft carriers and bombers when there's no one to use them against. There's no reason to waste money on missile defense systems when there's no one to launch missiles against us.
Click to expand...

So, first he wants to make the country as a whole less secure, then he wants to remove your right to carry a concealed firearm.


Sounds like someone that I want assuring my "safety". :barf::barf::eek:
 
NAFTA is a national sovereignty issue not to mention the sovereignty of the States.

We don't have any business being deployed all over the world to support the Crown's rendition of a "new world order". If Russia and the "unaligned" nations decide to resist strongly against this "nwo" where, pray tell, do you think the missiles will land????? Exactly.

I don't need any more radiation; nor do I need to experience the temperature of the sun over my head.

The real question is whether or not he's merely pandering to the grassroots Americans (like ALL of our "fearless leaders" minus Ron Paul) or is he serious - like Ron Paul.
 
This is kind of thought that had the U.S. practicing with dummy wooden rifles and truck with word tank on them. You never know when the next big war will happen, and look how unprepared we were for a war we choose to start. Also the China, Russia, North Korea and Iran are all counties that have shown aggressiveness and a military build up towards us. During a peace you should prepare for next war.
Click to expand...

Yes Yes, our military is SOOOOO, underfunded just like they were in the early 1900's, the Chinese and Russians are going to catch up to us any day now.:rolleyes:

118020322_f5132e3fba.jpg
 
Crosshair, that table looks impressive but here is a link to another which will put it into a bit better perspective:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/images/table2.gif

(the table is from this page) http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/BG1581.cfm

It would seem to me that we're paying a lot to assure the average "poor" person in America has more worldly possessions and a better lifestyle than the average middle class person in the rest of the world.

Back on topic I have no doubt that Mr. Obama will try to divert more money from the military to entitlement programs, to disastrous effect.
 
Yes Yes, our military is SOOOOO, underfunded just like they were in the early 1900's, the Chinese and Russians are going to catch up to us any day now.
Click to expand...

How do your numbers relate to a percentage of gross GNP?

WildcuriousAlaska ™
 
How do your numbers relate to a percentage of gross GNP?
Click to expand...

military-spend-per-gdp-top-50-nations.png


So we are being outspent % of GDP wise by allot of third world countries and we are outspending % of GDP wise by virtually all 1st world countries.
 
How do your numbers relate to a percentage of gross GNP?
Click to expand...
Percentage of GNP, while interesting to some folks, is essentially meaningless. It only has value to someone who wishes to increase spending on the military.

I see that the chart above is GDP, not GNP. That skews the figures substantially, not in a way that the Pentagon would like.
 
Percentage of GNP, while interesting to some folks, is essentially meaningless. It only has value to someone who wishes to increase spending on the military.
Click to expand...

Yes, but see the rest of us are engaged in a discussion, not necessarily looking for statistics to twist to justify preconceived ideas (hatred of the US and the military).

Look! I didn't misspell

WildgeniusatlastAlaska ™
 
I haven't seen anyone post any hate the US or hate the military posts in this thread, Ken, so I don't really know.

My posts are in support of any candidate who makes a couple of changes in the military.

First, all most all of it needs to be based within the US boundaries. Embassy guards would be a possible exception.

Second, the US military needs to be substantially smaller. Certainly not less than 50%, and as much as 90% reduction in size would be appropriate.
 
It is reassuring to know that there are America-hating citizens across all walks of society; even on gun forums, oblivious to the fact that our military strength helps to defend their rights, including the right to say as they please and to K&BA. Major disconnect in the thought processes!
 
If the UN did what they were supposed to do, the world would be against lawless countries with evil leaders. But, the UN has turned into the tyrannical dictators club. The US has used the military to offset the combined dictators club from exterminating what freedoms exist in this world. In the war between good and evil, the USA must outspend the total combined spending of most evil countries because we are about the only ones fighting for good. Some other countries are making token contributions, but not enough to stand on their own, just riding our coattails so they can fund their socialist programs and become more like what we fight against. I don't believe the numbers for China and Russia.
 
Rights are intrinsic to the human existence. You can either believe the concept of rights was "discovered" by men, or revealed to man by God.

Either explanation makes no difference with the concept of rights. "Social Contract" is the name of a treatise written by Jean-Jacques Rousseau published in 1765. Voltaire, having read a copy Rousseau sent him for review, wrote back that, "it made me want to crawl around on all fours". That's what the concept of the "Social Contract" pushes me towards as well.

Of course, one should keep in mind that the ideas contained in Social Contract were written to justify the power held by the totalitarian French monarchy. Concepts that were modified somewhat and used by the Jacobins during the French Revolution, then modified slightly again and used by Marx in his famous work published in 1847, The Communist Manifesto.
Click to expand...

I love you, Pat!

It's good to see someone else who actually reads the tomes of philosophy.

Has anyone read Frederic Bastiat's The Law?

If one wishes to read about US foreign policy please read Brzezinski and also google "US National Security Strategy".
 
Last edited:
mountainclmbr right on!
I thought the UN was supposed to keep the peace! Policing the world is a great idea if you can afford it. We are at a crossroad here on fiscal spending and borrowing. Does that mean we hate America because we don't want to bankrupt the country? Far from it.
 
I do believe Obama will,if elected, allow the military to fall into a state of disrepair. How then will we respond to another terrorist attack when it happens? Perhaps President Obama will talk them to death. Maybe we can count on the UN to fight for us.
 
Every single one of those is a damn good idea. There's no reason to be building more aircraft carriers and bombers when there's no one to use them against. There's no reason to waste money on missile defense systems when there's no one to launch missiles against us.
Click to expand...

Well, like others have said, there are plenty of people who might want to shoot missiles at us. And aircraft carriers are an essential part of long-range naval power. The US has been heavily dependent on maritime trade since before the Revolutionary war, and to scrap the ability to project massive amounts of naval military force across the globe is to stop investing in maintaining a trade network this nation has depended on for centuries. Obama is clearly not fit to command US naval force as Commander in Chief if he can't understand the strategic value of aircraft carriers.

Ridding the world of nukes and a worldwide ban on fissile material is a good thing. The only way to use nukes is against foreign states, not cells of terrorists so having those weapons does nothing to prevent them from being used on us.
Click to expand...

The only way weapons fall out of favor is by becoming obsolete. Nukes are nowhere near obsolete because they are such excellent weapons: Threaten my country and you won't have one of your own. They still have international utility for that reason alone. And terrorists typically are fighting for interests which are confined to geographical areas. That means a lot of the interests of terrorist groups are subject to nuclear attack as well.

Weaponizing space is one of the most heinous thing anyone could ever suggest.
Click to expand...

Space is the ultimate high ground. Sun Tzu said "Keep to the high ground even if it kills you." for good reason. If we don't weaponize space along with the Russians and Chinese (who most definitely will in the future) then we will have ceded the high ground to military rivals. I question the utility of that course of action.

This doesn't "disarm" our military, it makes it more efficient and limits its use and budget to necessities.

Wrong message? This is one of the best messages that could ever be sent. America will stop policing the world, stop initiating wars and stop exporting our way of life through the barrel of a gun.
Click to expand...

It doesn't disarm the military in the present. For the next decade or so the military would be very capable of its mission. But once the strategic advantages we have now are given up and strategic advantages which are now only potential are not sought after the U.S. military might as well be disarmed in the face of strategically superior enemies in 20 years.
 
Weaponizing space is one of the most heinous thing anyone could ever suggest.
Click to expand...

The use of artillery is one of the most heinous thing anyone could ever suggest.

Development of the rifle is one of the most heinous thing anyone could ever suggest.

Creation of Smart Bombs is one of the most heinous thing anyone could ever suggest.

Use of Naplam is one of the most heinous thing anyone could ever suggest.

Use of Machineguns is one of the most heinous thing anyone could ever suggest.

All those things are "heinous" but most especially so when the other side does so unopposed. I see no reason not to weaponize space as long as it suites our purposes. To ignore a clear area where the USA can be at advantage over other nations is foolish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top