What is Digg?112 Comments
- mgraham80, on 03/02/2009, -4/+33The military is over-extended throughout the world. America needs to accept that we can't afford our vast overseas empire anymore. Once we accept this fact and reduce our footprint, we can dramatically cut our budget.
As it is, we spend too damn much on our useless military commitments, most of them anachronisms from the Cold War. Do we really need ~50,000 troops permanently stationed in Germany, for instance? - mgraham80, on 03/02/2009, -6/+30Is there any reason the USA needs to spend more on its military than the rest of the world combined? We need to adjust to new realities: we can't afford our empire anymore.
- inactive, on 03/02/2009, -7/+26It's about damn time. There have been years where we spent more on our military than the cost of every other military in the world combined, and I'm not exaggerating. Hell, even with the recent cutbacks it still isn't nearly enough. I understand the desire for global projection capabilities but we could cut our entire military budget by 75% and still spend twice as much as any other individual military on the planet. It's ridiculous.
- prrp, on 03/02/2009, -4/+22IDEA: How about we get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the other 100+ countries we currently have bases in? (not kidding about the 100+)
- santiago1, on 03/02/2009, -3/+18 Yeah, all the while AIG gets another coupla billion to play with...... stupid ***** government.....
- cadmiumpaint, on 03/02/2009, -1/+14The military also needs to learn how to function within real budgets. The days of unlimited spending should be over. They need a good ol fashioned household budget with real oversight. No more $300 hammers and $500 toilet seats. Cut back some unnecessary blue sky weapons system development projects that aren't needed. They need to audit every single contractor line by line. They are getting taken to the cleaners by people like Haliburton and the like who are double and tripple billing.
We have the greatest most technologically advanced military in the world. We don't need more toys we can't afford. - Diggopolis, on 03/01/2009, -2/+14Good article, but the writer talks out of the thing meant to be sat on.
- Dweller99, on 03/02/2009, -1/+12Obviously the first cuts will be coming from the front line. Everyone gets 3 bullets! Make them count!
I served, and witnessed waste on an epic scale. The military has PLENTY of places to start saving without effecting the front lines.
idiot. - Infidelcastr0, on 03/02/2009, -2/+11We need to cut our military budget by a third, at least.
Imperialism is the most tried and true way to send one's country down the *****.
Hell we could cut in in half and still be able to defend ourselves better than we do now if we started closing foreign bases and using the military for DEFENSE. - inactive, on 03/02/2009, -2/+11How about bringing our troops from over 120 countries around the world as a starter. We can keep some troops in Guam and maybe somewhere in Europe, but the rest should come home.
- MacEnvy, on 03/02/2009, -1/+9@Nintendesert
On the contrary, I would think the WW2 made it clear that when any one country expands its interests far outside its borders, it has the potential to end badly for everyone.
We're no more perfect in our governance here in the US than in most other western nations. Why should we get free reign over international geopolitics and world policing? - MacEnvy, on 03/02/2009, -0/+6I was commenting similarly on each of his new usernames for a while, but I gave up. You'd think Digg would get proactive and ban based on IP range, but here we are again.
- EricSchC1, on 03/02/2009, -5/+12We spend more on our military than all of the other developed countries, combined. No one died and made the U.S. the world police, and even if they did, our tax dollars aren't being spent well, w/our countries best interests at heart.
- FlaG8r, on 03/02/2009, -0/+7The article doesn't seem to match the headline. I don't see any discussion of the financing of our army at all.
- inactive, on 03/02/2009, -0/+7Holy crap. Last time I saw a comment by you you were still Me078. You get banned quick, don't you?
- thepeacemaker, on 03/02/2009, -4/+10They won't need ANY if they mind their own business and stay in their own country as other countries manage to do.
- igyigyigy, on 03/02/2009, -0/+6No, he meant the larger bases. Embassy guards tend to be a rather small number per country.
- thepeacemaker, on 03/02/2009, -6/+12What in heavens' name is the US military doing in more than 5 dozen countries anyway?? If they get their asses back to where they belong (i.e. with in their own borders), the expenses would drastically reduce.
This is absurd...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ ...
1 United States 713,100,000,000 2009[3]
2 France 61,571,330,000 2008-2009[5]
3 United Kingdom 61,280,890,000 2008[6]
4 China 61,090,000,000 2008[7]
5 Russia 50,000,000,000 2009[8][9]
6 Japan 48,860,000,000 2008[10]
7 Germany 45,930,000,000 2008[11]
8 Italy 40,050,000,000 2008[12]
9 India 32,700,000,000 2009-2010[13]
10 Saudi Arabia 31,050,000,000 2008[14] - pinchduck, on 03/02/2009, -0/+5Pull back the troops, then cut the budget. To do so in the reverse order is folly.
- inactive, on 03/02/2009, -1/+6What about bring them home
- MacEnvy, on 03/02/2009, -4/+9Oh no! Not domestic spending! I want to keep spending on things that won't help any average citizens at all, like we have been doing!
- fugazied, on 03/02/2009, -0/+4Get a grip JCred (and some reading comprehension). This is not about under funding troops in active combat. It's about bringing back troops on expensive deployments which serve no real purpose. Who knows, if they brought back 50k troops sitting around in Germany and another 30 countries, there might be cash for proper vests for combat troops in Iraq. Now that is supporting our troops.
- vigilante1, on 03/02/2009, -8/+12Why don't we just throw ANOTHER trillion dollars at the military? That seems to be the answer these days.
- mgraham80, on 03/02/2009, -1/+5Chicken hawks like jnav121 just like to play with all the fun military toys. If a few toy soldiers happen to get broken when we take them out of the packaging, more's the pity.
- DangerCollie, on 03/02/2009, -0/+4We need a healthy military. The question is whether we really 6 aircraft carrier groups and 41 ballistic missile submarines? I could see 4 or 5, even 10 but 41? And in the age of remotely piloted aircraft, how much sense does it make to spend 2 billion a copy on stealth bombers? Who are we going to fight with that technology?
I think we need to really talk about whether it makes sense to spend so much of our GDP on war. Especially when we have people not taking their medicine every day because they can't afford it. And our college students graduating $40,000 in debt because of student loans.
We can have a kick butt military on a lot less than we're spending now. - Bhatch514, on 03/02/2009, -4/+8The important thing to note is that the Military is not only about attacking countries. It is about defense of the people and territories, equipment for natural disasters and training for the men and women to use that equipment with confidence.
Also the military is employment for lots of people as well as the contracts and materials it buys which contributes back to the government in taxes and employment. The important thing is that the budget balances and the military personal are properly funded for the tasks it is required to do.
Someone needs to be there when Katrina hits, when the levies break, when the riots start. Someone needs to evacuate and help civilians out.
Iraq and Afghanistan are bad recent examples of aggressive military use and contribute to the largest recent operating costs, but not the largest justification for the money spent. - Balanced, on 03/02/2009, -1/+5If we start less wars both sides are happy: The military's costs are less when they're not in an active war and they're not getting shot at, so they're safer. Win-win.
- treehugger87, on 03/02/2009, -0/+3Look! Me085 did a funny! I actually lol'd.
I still buried him, though ;) - mst3kcrow, on 03/02/2009, -1/+4You mean like screwing vets out from PTSD treatments?
- IgorUnchained, on 03/02/2009, -0/+3We have been in Iraq for how long? They had no standing army...no air force...they are using 20 year old AKs...and we still havent "won"? In 6 years??
Somehow, I dont think "funding" is the problem here. - MGrizam, on 03/02/2009, -1/+4you know what i agree to that... i was being sarcastic...
- treehugger87, on 03/02/2009, -1/+4First, mwrl, thank you for your service. It's a deep American shame that the soldiers on the ground and returning home who are the ones feeling the effect of "doing more than less" when it should be the wasteful use of contractors, pork-laden contracts and ridiculous bidding process that should be feeling the pinch.
- mwrl, on 03/02/2009, -4/+7We spend more on welfare then the military. At least the military is effective with their money.
- defwheezer, on 03/02/2009, -1/+4Maybe its too late:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
... doh! Too late.
"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."
... doh! Too late, again!
source: Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/i ... - fugazied, on 03/02/2009, -0/+3Yeah it seems kind of ludicrous. The is no Berlin wall, no USSR, no obvious political advantage? It just costs a lot of money.
- fury420, on 03/02/2009, -0/+3other presidents have not announced plans to significantly reduce the personal profit many of the people associated with the DJIA take home on a yearly basis.
i expect the stock market to drop on news that Obama has plans to reduce money funneled directly into their pockets - TruthKid, on 03/02/2009, -2/+5Pull out of all the countries we have bases in? Eh not so much. I've been stationed in a few corners of the world, and questioned our presense in most of them. From a strategic standpoint it makes sense to have a few bases in Germany, Kuwait, and Korea because it gives us a staging area. However having military bases in places like the UK, Qatar, Turkey, etc... is kinda pushing it because the same mission could more then likely be accomplished in an existing base that isn't working at full capacity. With defense, you don't always play man to man coverage, sometimes you need to keep a zone option open.
- ddawggin, on 03/02/2009, -1/+3We're only 28th on a % of GDP basis and I'd be curious to see where we are on a per capita basis. I do agree with you that you should always cut waste.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ ... - BlacklabelSAR, on 03/03/2009, -0/+2Yeah, by wearing the USSR down through the arms race. You made my point for me. Supporting an empire bankrupted the USSR.
Or do you think Reagan destroyed the USSR by his will alone? - inactive, on 03/02/2009, -1/+3Who are you people kidding? We have the most advanced fighting machine one could create, but we aren't allowed to use it. Instead, we fight "ethical" wars against savage opponents and the President overseeing it still faces the possibility of being brought up on war crimes. If we actually used the arm and the force part of the armed forces, less of our troops would die and less of our time and money would be spent.
- uGotTheWrongGuy, on 03/02/2009, -0/+2
Vipertech brings up a good point. At my job we got Force-Shaped. Lost HALF of our workers. Our mission didn't change at all, so we have the same mission with only half the people to do it. Don't you feel safer? - banshee90, on 03/02/2009, -0/+2It doesnt matter how much funding you have look at Israel it has been fighting the Palestinians for decades. the only way they will stop fighting is if one country commits mass genocide and that wont happen because 1 Israel is the only country out of the two to be able to do that and they just wouldnt it would be terrible for their foreign affairs.
- AAK15, on 03/02/2009, -3/+5Thank you
- treehugger87, on 03/02/2009, -0/+2Welcome to Digg, jnav121. Good to see you've joined the horde of like-minded people who have signed up for Digg over the past two weeks. Using the helicopter fleet that Bush ordered and Obama will probably cancel is laughably naive and the not-so-subtle reference to black culture ala "rimz" is patently childish and exposes you for the bigot you are.
I'm guessing that some well financed grandmaster is finding a way to get his white-hooded homies a little work on the side. Hope we won't be seeing much of you in here. - zeebo, on 03/03/2009, -1/+3Body armor is cheap, F-22s on the other hand... Why should we buy more jets when even the 'budget' JSF is better than any other countries best planes.
We need a military that is adapted to the wars we're actually fighting, rather than the wars that the generals would rather be fighting. - uGotTheWrongGuy, on 03/02/2009, -1/+3Go ahead and digg me down for this, but seriously with the funding that the US military has today it works magic! We're using outdated equipment and reusing everything we can in order to do our jobs. I remember during the W-Bush years when there was a bill trying to get pushed through to give the DoD funding for the wars. Do you know what they told us would happen if it didn't pass, they didn't say the wars would end and our people would come home, they told us that we'd start missing paychecks until the DoD was back on its feet. If you cut military spending the only people your gonna hurt are those on the ground. The US military WILL get the job done no matter what the cost. Nothing is bought unless it is necessary and can be justified to the tax payer.
I agree that we need to get out of Iraq, and finish things up in Afghanistan asap, but most of our other overseas bases are strategically necessary, we are spread out all over the world, so we can never be caught with our pants down. Also we can strike anywhere in the world if we need to. The United States has alot of enemies, things would be much harder for any Americans if we didn't have strategic advantages that we enjoy today.
For the record I am a democrat and have been an Obama supporter since I heard him speak, but I'm also a patriot who has seen what it takes to keep the USA and her interests protected. - inactive, on 03/02/2009, -2/+3As I recall it terrorists killed some 3000 "average citizens" on 9/11 and they'd be eager to do it again.
- inactive, on 03/03/2009, -0/+1I think you would find that if terrorists left us alone and stayed in the 3rd century, then we wouldn't have any reason to attack them. And we'd still have that big swinging dick to beat you on the forehead with, followed by a little tea bagging on your dumb unconcious ass.
- yarcod, on 03/02/2009, -0/+1While I respect where you're coming from mwrl... and don't want to take away from those of you fighting on the front lines... these two make good points. You're seeing an over-extention of our capabilities... not a strain on a legitimate defense budget.
Cut back our interventionist foreign policy and there would be plenty of money to go around for fine folks like you. - pinchduck, on 03/02/2009, -1/+2I'm not sure what your definition of "Win" is. Let's ask Saddam...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 117 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is