| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/23 |
| 2006/2/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/SIG, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41730 Activity:moderate |
2/6 Democrats, not Republicans, want to grow the Army to far bigger:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060206/ap_on_go_pr_wh/budget_defense_6
"His approach, which is opposed by many Democrats in Congress who
believe the Army in particular is being stretched too thin and needs to
get far bigger, ......"
\_ I actually support the idea of bringing back the draft, although
not on the scale seen in early decades (and certainly not with the
unfair Vietnam-era deferments). The currently professional
military does not accurately reflect American society as a whole -
generally it is more conservative, more Christian, more macho,
and more working class than America is as a whole. A fair draft
would make the Army much more reflective of society as a whole,
and probably less prone to form a distinct special interest
"power bloc." Not to mention the fact that more Americans
would have a direct stake in American military action, either
directly or through family ties. --liberal
\_ You want your military to be Politically Correct or to save your
ass when The Bad Guys show up? Who gives a shit if the army
isn't quota perfect? Few things are. Is this some bizarre
troll or do you really actually believe all that crap?
\_ I'm completely serious. We fought WWII with a military
made up of everyone. Stop jerking your knees and think
\_ Uh.. Tuskegee Airmen?
about it for a second - I'm not talking about quotas.
The Founding Fathers had good reason to fear an entrenched
warrior class - see also Eisenhower's "military-industrial
complex" speech.
\_ The average soldier in the army is not what Eisenhower
was talking about. You want to go back to WWII style
combat where they lose 5000+ men a day in every major
conflict and sometimes more? What was so great about
that? Today we have a highly mobile, all volunteer,
professional army much much smaller than WWII which kicked
the hell out of Sadam's WWII style draftee army in GW1
and GW2. Morale, training, effectiveness, and every
other measure of army quality has never been higher. I
don't think a draftee PC Army can *ever* approach the
quality armed forces we have today. When I need a
plumber, I don't check to see if he's properly reflective
of the make up of the community. I want to know that he's
the best plumber I can get for my dollar. Seriously, go
look up the WWII loss totals for various battles. WWI
was even worse and the deaths even more pointless. (I'll
grant that GW2 isn't a 'fair' comparison since it was
really just the long awaited end of GW1 but Iraq still
had a number of well equiped units that got flattened
if they didn't flee).
\_ I'm not op or supporting a draft but GW and Afghnstn
are not good examples of our superior army over WWII.
We had overwhelming superiority in equipment and
air support, and the enemy knew it. That aspect is
not a draftee vs. nondraftee issue.
\_ The Soviets had overwhelming superiority in equipment
air support, numbers, and everything else, but still
got their asses handed to them in Afghanistan. They
use draftees. We don't. We bombed the place and
used fast light highly motivated ground forces when
needed. 10 years later the Soviets retreated in
shame. 10 weeks later we owned the country.
Draftee armies just suck. There's a good reason for
that if you think about it for 2 seconds. When it
comes to protecting my skin, I'll take the
professionals who signed up for it over a much
larger group of enslaved walking targets who only
want to get home alive, thanks. Maybe you know
something that the top military and civilians in
our government don't know. Write a letter, maybe
they'll do a draft for you. There's no way you're
going to convince anyone that a drafted army is
better than an all volunteer professional force.
\_ The Soviets were fighting against guerillas
armed with the latest US technology and with
US support. Afghanistan would be totally
different if, say, France was helping the
rebels. Even now, only the capital is truly
under control and the rest of the country is
as lawless as ever.
\_ France? Huh? The Soviets are the WWII army
you say you want. I don't care who they were
fighting. They got their asses kicked. I gave
you a professional vs. draftee example. I gave
you another WWII vs. volunteer example. You're
just trolling now. I can not 'create' a war
that will satisfy your ideal conflict. Such an
event has never taken place and never will.
You have yet to show a place where draftees
came even close to beating professionals or
volunteers much less the 2 ass kicking examples
I gave of the opposite. Good bye.
\_ How about the Hessians losing to the
Americans in the Revolutionary War?
Weren't mercenaries also at the root of
the military problems of ancient Rome?
Anyway, that is beside the point I was
making about Afghanistan, which you ignored.
\_ Professional army was cool until US had to
occupy Iraq for the long term. Now there isn't
enough manpower, and regimes like N. Korea and
Iran knows that US's hands are tied. The
other problem with professional army is that
now that they have Iraq, they had trouble
getting new recruits.
\_ In one of the letters that Osama bin Ladin addressed
to the American people, he stated that his goal
was to bankrupt the United States. It doesn't
really matter if we have overwhelming superiority
in equipment. Our net gain from this war (and
from Vietnam) will be zero, if not negative. And
we are just playing into the hands of Al Quaida....
\_ Math is good. Compare the cost of GW2+Afghan+
DHS+everything-else to the federal budget.
AlQ hasn't done jack in the US since 9/11. I'm
failing to see the failure in the current policy.
\_ The American economy is only doing well due
to massive government stimulus. If the
Iranian Oil bourse starts chipping away at
the dollar's current place as the
reserve currency of the world, Asia will
stop buying up all our debt and the economy
will crumble. We will no longer be able to
inflate away our $8 trillion debt.
\_ huh? why would we not be able to
inflate away our debt? asia not buying
our debt will only help, cause it
causes dollar to fall and improves our
exports and reduce trade decifit. debt
is in US dollar so it will stay constant
(and become smaller relative to exports).
\_ China's currency is pegged to ours.
If they stop buying our debt we have
to raise our interest rates. A lot. |
| 5/23 |
|
| news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060206/ap_on_go_pr_wh/budget_defense_6 AP Military Budget Grows, but Troops Shrink By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer 2 hours, 32 minutes ago WASHINGTON - Its wartime budget is getting bigger, yet the US military is aiming to get smaller. That apparent disconnect is explained by what Defense Secretary Donald H Rumsfeld considers a key to modernizing the military: investing in technological advances to do more with fewer people. His approach, which is opposed by many Democrats in Congress who believe the Army in particular is being stretched too thin and needs to get far bigger, is reflected in the 2007 budget proposal the administration sent to Congress on Monday. The Pentagon also is proposing to spend a lot more on protecting troops in Iraq from roadside bombs, which are the biggest killer. The overall defense budget request is for $439 billion, a 7 percent increase over 2006, not counting war costs that are estimated at $125 billion this year and at least $50 billion next year. The regular budget total would pay for an active-duty military of just over 13 million troops, or 29,600 fewer than this year. It covers a reserve force of 825,700 people, a drop of 22,800. The Army National Guard accounts for most of that reduction, although officials have said they will pay for more Guardsmen than are in the budget if recruiting picks up. The Air Force plans to cut 40,000 people over the next several years. Within those overall reductions, some segments of the military will expand, particularly the special operations forces, like the Army's Green Berets. Rumsfeld foresees a growing role for forces that can operate in small units, sometimes clandestinely, to hunt down and kill terrorists and to work with friendly foreign forces. The special operations force would grow from about 50,000 today to about 64,000 by 2011. Although the 2007 budget pays for an active-duty Army of 482,400 -- the same as this year's total -- the Army actually has 492,000 soldiers in uniform now and is aiming to reach 512,000 in a few years. Everything above 482,000 is being paid for with emergency funds rather than the regular budget and is supposed to be a temporary increase. Once the Army has reorganized itself it hopes to slide back down to a troop total of 482,000. One example of why the Army argues that it does not always take an increase in troops to attain an increase in firepower is a new 155mm artillery weapon. It is not yet ready for fielding, but as designed it would take three times fewer people to operate than the old version, with the same firepower as six older 155mm cannons. Thus two soldiers operating one of the new weapons could achieve on the battlefield what it took 36 to do with the old weapons, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the top Army officer, said in an interview last week. In similar ways, the Navy is moving toward ships with smaller crews. The Air Force is fielding missiles and bombs that can hit more targets with greater precision, thus requiring fewer airplanes to accomplish the mission. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, right, with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace, speaks during a news conference on the Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2007 Budget at the Pentagon, Monday, Feb. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. |