Good intentions, but incredibly naive, in my opinion.

From a global perspective (and having worked with many allied nations in the Foreign Military Sales arena), I just can't see one US President achieving all of these stated goals in a vacuum (ignoring the concerns and opinions of our allies as regards military might, world peace, and security cooperation).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxL8NcNACBY

Considering how much we spend on our military, it's about time some cuts were made.

Says you.

I work for the military.
You cut funding to our vital programs, and my family and I are one paycheck from the street.

There are ways to economize, of course, and save a shitload of defense dollars.

The implementation of the NSPS (National Security Personnel System) is one of the cost & efficiency programs that I am most excited about.

NSPS is the Department of Defense’s (DoD) new civilian management system that:
* Values performance and contribution
* Encourages communication
* Supports broader skill development
* Promotes excellence in the workplace

Considering how many of our Government Servants (currently operating under the old system) are bloated, useless, lethargic, unmotivated, unfireable, and have no concern whatsoever for the warfighters they are supposed to be serving, I would say that it's high time we are implementing the new system.
Under NSPS, the hard workers are rewarded, the average contributors are retained in grade, and the useless slackers will actually be fired or have money taken away from them.

Hmmm. "bloated, useless, lethargic, unmotivated, unfireable, and have no
concern whatsoever for the warfighters they are supposed to be serving..."

Sounds like our Congress.
:eek:

Says you.

I work for the military.
You cut funding to our vital programs, and my family and I are one paycheck from the street.

There are ways to economize, of course, and save a shitload of defense dollars.


I would think. I would also think that we should be able to adequately protect ourselves without spending as much on defense every year as the rest of the world put together. We spend five times more than the next nearest country (China). I don't want you to lose your job, but we're just spending way too much.

Comrade Sparks, post #3 nicely sums up as to why the US must always engage in Foreign military adventures.

To keep the economy ticking over at home. I have no idea as to how, if ever the bubble will burst, regards spending, but it will eventually burst.

I can see now why Republicans look so inviting to a section of the electorate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxL8NcNACBY

Thanks for posting the video -- it was the subject of some controversy last week:

McCain on FCS: Flip-flop or fib?

By Bradley Peniston - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Sep 15, 2008 17:08:08 EDT

Has Sen. John McCain renounced his longtime antagonism toward the Army’s Future Combat Systems?

On Sept. 8, the Republican presidential candidate told a rally crowd in Lee’s Summit, Mo., about an Obama video message to a liberal advocacy group.

“He promised them he would, quote, ‘slow our development of Future Combat Systems,’” McCain said, according to wire reports. “This is not a time to slow our development of Future Combat Systems.”

Flashback to July, however, when his campaign furnished McCain’s economic plan to The Washington Post, declaring that “there are lots of procurements — Airborne Laser, [C-17] Globemaster, Future Combat System [sic] — that should be ended and the entire Pentagon budget should be scrubbed.”

In fact, McCain has long criticized the over-budget, behind-schedule FCS program. In 2005, he blasted the Army for allowing the program to balloon to $161 billion, and forced the service to rewrite the main FCS contract.

So where does McCain really stand? Some bloggers and analysts have suggested that he used the term “future combat systems” generically. Obama’s campaign maintains their candidate was speaking specifically about FCS, in which case McCain may be twisting his rival’s words.

Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute called it deceitful.

“McCain’s interpretation of Obama’s position is typical of the way in which the Republicans have twisted Democratic views in order to undercut their opponents and at the same time obscure the past positions of the Republicans,” Thompson said. “Future Combat Systems is the centerpiece of Army modernization. However, McCain has been more critical of it than anyone else in the chamber. Obama has been much more detailed and thoughtful in his comments about future military investment than McCain’s very superficial statements.”

Officials with the McCain campaign did not return phone calls and emails requesting clarification.

What Obama said

McCain was quoting from a campaign video message from Obama to a liberal group that seeks to cut Pentagon funds by 15 percent.

“I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending,” Obama said in the video, recorded earlier this year. “I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of Future Combat Systems.”

F. Whitten Peters, a defense adviser for the Obama campaign and former secretary of the Air Force, confirmed that the Democratic candidate was talking about the Army program.

“Obama had said that he wanted to review FCS and he thought that he might want to slow the fielding,” Peters said. “His feeling is there really needs to be an overall strategic review of larger weapon programs to decide which ones are sufficiently important to keep going and which ones may need to be scaled back.”

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/defense_mccain_FCS_091208/

Considering how much we spend on our military, it's about time some cuts were made.Then Neville Chamberlain would definitely not be your guy.

He dramatically increased military spending while instituting a peacetime draft.

Then Neville Chamberlain would definitely not be your guy.

He dramatically increased military spending while instituting a peacetime draft.

Chamberlain was buying for time tho, was he not ?

Chamberlain was buying for time tho, was he not ?

Of course he was, but Americans like to portray him as a coward and an appeaser who handed Europe to Hitler.

Buying time for what? Germany to get ready on the Polish border?

Buying time for what? Germany to get ready on the Polish border?For one thing, the time to accelerate the development and production of the Hurricanes and Spitfires that won the Battle of Britain.

It amazes me that there isnt a giant statue of Chamberlain in Washington, he put in motion the wheels that made America a superpower.

WTF? talk about historical revisionism. Now it was Cahamberlain that made the victory at the Battle of Britain possible? LOL

WTF? talk about historical revisionism. Now it was Cahamberlain that made the victory at the Battle of Britain possible? LOLDo a little research, Trav.

For example:

Contrary to the accepted myth, it was “the government that was the essential driving force behind the creation of the Spitfire”, while “private industry lagged badly behind”, namely Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, his Defence Co-ordination Minister Sir Thomas Inskip, and Air Secretary Viscount Swinton, without whom “the programme might have slid into paralysis”, yet who hardly gets a mention “in all the wealth of literature about the RAF”.

Indeed, if Churchill had got his way in 1938 (as opposed to 1940), the RAF would have been saddled with slower, two-seater Boulton-Paul Defiants, which proved an easy target for German Messerschmitts and if widely deployed would have lost us the Battle of Britain.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/22533/SPITFIRE-PORTRAIT-8200-OF-8200-A-8200-LEGEND-By-Leo-McKinstry-John-Murray-20

If it were not for Chamberlain there would never have BEEN a Battle of Britain in the first place! Saying he won it when it would probably have never happened in the first place were not for his appeasment is crazy.

If it were not for Chamberlain there would never have BEEN a Battle of Britain in the first place! Saying he won it when it would probably have never happened in the first place were not for his appeasment is crazy.

Just as crazy to suggest that Chamberlain was responsible for causing the Battle of Britain.

Trav, I recommend you read some WWII history that wasn't written by an American.

Like what?

Here ya go Trav:

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/bobhome.html

Like what?

The Second World War by John Keegan is an excellent overview of the war written by a Brit.

OK, it is dumb to blame chamberlain for WW2, but of the many chances the west had to possibly nip it in the bud he had one of them, and blew it.

Hindsight is 20/20. :)

I think it's debatable whether Chamberlain could have prevented WW2, or simply delayed it.
Germany was determined to take Poland no matter what.

Hindsight is 20/20. :)
Not always so much. WW2 was a huge oversight. Everybody's fault, US included. The only hindsight to give any of them was that they were all deluded. They wanted to avoid war at all costs. To the point that they just made the inevitable war worse. Hindsight is 20/20, but they were all incredibly stupid that they weren't able to predict what would happen.

I think it's debatable whether Chamberlain could have prevented WW2, or simply delayed it.
Germany was determined to take Poland no matter what.

It was but allied military action in Sudetenland, or even strong allied threat could have drastically changed Hitlers designs on Poland. Instead Chanberalin GAVE hitler part of Chzecloslovakia in his Policy of Appeasement, which is what he called it.

OK, it is dumb to blame chamberlain for WW2, but of the many chances the west had to possibly nip it in the bud he had one of them, and blew it.


Perhaps, perhaps not. Britain didn't have a huge army with which to challenge Hitler, and they certainly weren't going to do it without French help. Britain also knew that Germany didn't have enough naval strength to threaten England directly. After the horrors of WWI I think it's perfectly understandable that France and England would both be reluctant to do that again.

By the time of the Munich Crisie in 1938 the RAF No 19 Squadron was the only one that possesed the Spitfire.
The second unit to recieve Spitfires was No 66 Squadron, both based at Duxford, thus by the end of 1938 the RAF had two fully equipped Spitfire Squadrons with 100% reserves.
By the outbreak of war on 3 September 1939, Spitfires equipped nine Squadrons.
Nos 19, 66 and 611 at Duxford, Nos 54, 65 and 74 at Hornchurch, Nos 41 and 609 at Catterick and 602 at Abbotsinch.
603 was replacing its Gladiators at Turnhouse. A total of 306 MK 1s had been delivered, 36 were written off in training exercises.
So before the outbreak of war, Britain was not in a position to defend itself.

Considering how much we spend on our military, it's about time some cuts were made.

To put it mildly.

This is the absolute number one issue for me, and why I vote --in every election-- for the candidate of the Party that vows to cut military spending by 50%. For starters.

It could be cut in half and the U.S. would STILL be outspending the rest of the largest nations on earth combined in terms of military outlays.

Who needs the insanity of the kind of huge spending imbalance --on the military-- that exists in this country? The U.S. spends more than 5 times as much as our combined enemies! Some faction in this country is draining over 640 billion taxdollars out of the US Treasury every year.....the public monies. It is not the liberals. It is not the welfare mothers. It is not the poor and underprivileged. It is the fat cats of the military/industrial complex.

http://www.globalissues.org/i/military/us-spending-2001-2009.png

_______________________________

When the interest payments on the insane and totally unnecessary nuclear arms build-up instituted by Ronald Reagan during the 1980's finally succeed in bankrupting this nation, over the ruins should be erected a sign reading "Your Taxdollars at Work!"

Good god why does this idiot have to pipe his shit into every post?

Trav, are you not concerned at how much funds are spent on military programmes ?

Not in the middle of a discussion about Neville Chamberlain and the battle of britain.

Not in the middle of a discussion about Neville Chamberlain and the battle of britain.
Thats a fair point.

It is OK paul. Freethinker has his own agenda. We could be discussing lamb chops and the guy would start talking about racist amerikkkans who worship the sky fairy and hate brown skins.

It is OK paul. Freethinker has his own agenda. We could be discussing lamb chops and the guy would start talking about racist amerikkkans who worship the sky fairy and hate brown skins.

Well I suppose that would be ok, after the lamb has arrived :D

“I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending,” Obama said in the video, recorded earlier this year. “I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of Future Combat Systems.”
Which is one of the reasons why the only way he should see the inside of the White House is on a guided tour.

How can he just say this shit? he isnt even up to speed on all the stuff going on in the world that 99.9% of us dont know is going on and he is already saying this?

http://www.globalissues.org/i/military/us-spending-2001-2009.png
Oh, gee, how utterly insightful - a graph that depicts a sharp increase in military spending from 2001 on.

Who'd a thunk it? :rolleyes:

How can he just say this shit? he isnt even up to speed on all the stuff going on in the world that 99.9% of us dont know is going on and he is already saying this?
Of course, what he doesn't say is that he'll penalize business while simultaneously pushing to increase wasteful spending by tens of billions of dollars on programs for the dregs of our society.

Who KNOWS what he'd do if confronted by a real threat.

On that note, his comment, "I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems," is a lot like saying 'I will cut investments in unproven cancer treatment programs'. Because our safety is on the line, I think his statement was/is worse than some asswipe conservative claiming that "stem cell research is pointless".

Oh, gee, how utterly insightful - a graph that depicts a sharp increase in military spending from 2001 on.

Who'd a thunk it? :rolleyes:

How much is enough?

Our spending has more than doubled since 2001. How much do we need?

How much is enough?

Our spending has more than doubled since 2001.
And what have we built? We've done a lot with that money, Vile. Hell, as it stands RIGHT now, it's only 3.7% of our GDP. I wouldn't mind seeing it at 5%.
How much do we need?
Well, personally, I would like to weaponize space. I want viable missile shields in place, and I want a commander in chief who makes our collective safety a number 1 priority of his. In short, I don't want someone socialist weenie who appeases terrorists to head up my country's defense.

And what have we built? We've done a lot with that money, Vile.

We've flushed most of it down the drain called "Iraq". Our spending on the military has doubled since 2001...are we twice as safe? Is the military twice as large?


Hell, as it stands RIGHT now, it's only 3.7% of our GDP. I wouldn't mind seeing it at 5%.

Who are you afraid of?


Well, personally, I would like to weaponize space. I want viable missile shields in place, and I want a commander in chief who makes our collective safety a number 1 priority of his. In short, I don't want someone socialist weenie who appeases terrorists to head up my country's defense.

Well personally, I'd like to see you discuss this issue without making dumbass remarks like the above.

We've flushed most of it down the drain called "Iraq".
History will judge Iraq accordingly, Vile. You're in no position to do so now, lest you wanna look foolish in 20 years. Either way, it's you prerogative, I suppose.
Our spending on the military has doubled since 2001...are we twice as safe? Is the military twice as large?
If my thinking were as linear as yours is, then I'd probably be of a similar mindset.
Who are you afraid of?
Anyone who wants to harm us. If you're asking me to name specific countries, then my answer is that it's in a state of flux. Unfortunately, that's an immutable fact of life, hence my philosophy on preparedness: it's always better to have a gun and not need it than it is to need a gun and not have it.
Well personally, I'd like to see you discuss this issue without making dumbass remarks like the above.
You've listened to his positions. Tell me where I'm "off the mark".

History will judge Iraq accordingly, Vile. You're in no position to do so now, lest you wanna look foolish in 20 years. Either way, it's you prerogative, I suppose.

Ok, let's ignore Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our spending in 2008 is ~$540 Billion, without Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2001 it was ~$320 Billion

Perhaps you could tell me what justifies this huge increase.


If my thinking were as linear as yours is, then I'd probably be of a similar mindset.

And if my thinking were as circular as yours, I'd be dizzy too. ;)


Anyone who wants to harm us.

How does this justify our spending increase?


If you're asking me to name specific countries, then my answer is that it's in a state of flux.

I see. You don't really know who we are defending against, you just know we aren't spending enough. I can't say that's a fiscally responsible outlook.



Unfortunately, that's an immutable fact of life, hence my philosophy on preparedness: it's always better to have a gun and not need it than it is to need a gun and not have it.

I agree. I just don't agree that we need twelve guns, a tank, and an aircraft carrier to be "prepared".


You've listened to his positions. Tell me where I'm "off the mark".

"socialist weenie who appeases terrorists"

Ok, let's ignore Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our spending in 2008 is ~$540 Billion, without Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2001 it was ~$320 Billion

Perhaps you could tell me what justifies this huge increase.
Having a presence in the most fucked up region on Earth has its benefits, especially when you couple it with the fact that Middle Eastern leadership is, hands down, the biggest threat we've dealt with in the last 50 years.
I see. You don't really know who we are defending against, you just know we aren't spending enough. I can't say that's a fiscally responsible outlook.
Cloud reality all you want, but we're still defending ourselves. As for being "fiscally responsible", I'd be completely amenable to implementing a system of governance that's runs our military in a similar way to the NSPS management system that Sparky was talking about earlier.
I agree. I just don't agree that we need twelve guns, a tank, and an aircraft carrier to be "prepared".
And how, exactly, do we go about defending ourselves (or other people, for that matter) against a barrage of missiles, Vile? With our "guns, our tanks, and our aircraft carriers"? No. There's still money that needs to be spent, period, and ANYONE who threatens to cut that funding off is threatening us.
"socialist weenie who appeases terrorists"
He wants to socialize our medical system, give more power to the unions, increase the taxes on corporations, and ultimately, he wants to speak to Ahmadinejad. How was I wrong?

In short, this guy's a bigger threat to America than small pox.

He is not a weenie, he is a pussy, that is how you are wrong.

Perhaps we should consider installing an Obama Shield? :) Hopefully, it'll be fully operational by Nov.

He can repel the missiles with a strong message and rousing speech.