EBSB52 0 #1 May 13, 2005 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/20050513/pl_nm/arms_usa_bases_closing_dc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #2 May 13, 2005 I dont agree with your premise.......but I'll still make it clicky for you http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/20050513/pl_nm/arms_usa_bases_closing_dcMarc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jkm2500 0 #3 May 13, 2005 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/20050513/pl_nm/arms_usa_bases_closing_dc There I made it clicky for you....The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #4 May 13, 2005 the url button is your friend...really."Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #5 May 13, 2005 Anyone see the full list of propsed closures yet? I'm wondering if any more Minuteman sites are set to be closed or if those levels will remain at their present levels.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #6 May 13, 2005 Oh boy, more fascists! The head of the commission earlier this month acknowledged the big impact, saying there "will be tsunamis in the communities they hit." Many communities mounted frantic lobbying efforts to try to save their local bases.Military bases are not welfare. They should be founded upon military necessity, not in providing a government financial windfall for towns.Total defense savings, combined with those anticipated by realigning U.S. forces worldwide, would be $6.7 billion a year and $64.2 billion after costs over 20 years, the Pentagon said.Do you want to cut costs or not?Coinciding with the domestic base-closing process, the Pentagon is working on plans to shift roughly 70,000 troops stationed abroad, primarily in Europe but also from South Korea, back to domestic U.S. bases.As it should be. Those nations should support their own self defense, instead of relying upon America to do it for them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #7 May 13, 2005 QuoteAnyone see the full list of propsed closures yet? Full List of Closures Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #8 May 13, 2005 Good. This will help reduce the deficit. Funny how those who scream the loudest about Govt. spending are the first ones to denounce any effort to get it under control. Gore any Golden Ox but mine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #9 May 13, 2005 Quotethe url button is your friend...really. If a person isn't motivated enough to cut-n-paste the URL - they aren't motivated enough to read the article Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #10 May 13, 2005 QuoteOh boy, more fascists! The head of the commission earlier this month acknowledged the big impact, saying there "will be tsunamis in the communities they hit." Many communities mounted frantic lobbying efforts to try to save their local bases.Military bases are not welfare. They should be founded upon military necessity, not in providing a government financial windfall for towns.Total defense savings, combined with those anticipated by realigning U.S. forces worldwide, would be $6.7 billion a year and $64.2 billion after costs over 20 years, the Pentagon said.Do you want to cut costs or not?Coinciding with the domestic base-closing process, the Pentagon is working on plans to shift roughly 70,000 troops stationed abroad, primarily in Europe but also from South Korea, back to domestic U.S. bases.As it should be. Those nations should support their own self defense, instead of relying upon America to do it for them. Oh boy, more fascists! If you don't have the capacity to refute the notion that the US is Fascist, at least have the decency not to attempt a misdirection. If you look at the thread title, you will see that I'm drawing a parody between the rhetoric about all base closures of the 90's were all Clinton's fault/doing versus the current proposals being Bush's doing/fault. These things almost always start in Congress and get signed by the pres., so I thought it was ignorant of people to blame Clinton for military cutbacks then and who will they blame now??????? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #11 May 13, 2005 QuoteGood. This will help reduce the deficit. Funny how those who scream the loudest about Govt. spending are the first ones to denounce any effort to get it under control. Gore any Golden Ox but mine. I don't scream about gov spending. Furthermore, look at the title to the thread Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #12 May 13, 2005 I wonder how much these saving would compare to cutting the Missle shield project. I still find that project just about as worthless as there is. The Airborne laser is right up there too. Neither one has scored well in any testing and they have both been over budget so far with no signs of getting better. Projects like the F22 and JSF while spendy are needed since a lot of the fighters out there will be reaching EOL before another decade goes by. I know some of the things on that list and I'm honestly surprized that they survived the last few rounds of cuts. They have reserve offices with in 3-4 miles of major MEPS centers (that are sitting half empty)? Consolidate and best use your lease $.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #13 May 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteGood. This will help reduce the deficit. Funny how those who scream the loudest about Govt. spending are the first ones to denounce any effort to get it under control. Gore any Golden Ox but mine. Quote I don't scream about gov spending. Well you should, it's out of control. I view this as a positive step in the right direction. QuoteFurthermore, look at the title to the thread The difference is Clinton also cut back on the number of military personel and then claimed he had reduced the size of Govt. I see nothing yet to indicate Bush is reducing the size of the military, only that he's trying to consolidate it and make it more efficient. I'm surprised you can't see the difference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #14 May 13, 2005 QuoteIf you don't have the capacity to refute the notion that the US is Fascist, at least have the decency not to attempt a misdirection. The U.S. is not a fascist nation. I gave you the definition yesterday. That's sufficient to prove it. I realize, of course, that your life is filled with fascist demons: fascist cops, fascist corporations, fascist Presidents, fascist CEO's, and your latest - fiscal fascists. So I understand that in your world, there are fascists hiding in every corner. QuoteIf you look at the thread title, you will see that I'm drawing a parody between the rhetoric about all base closures of the 90's were all Clinton's fault/doing versus the current proposals being Bush's doing/fault. These things almost always start in Congress and get signed by the pres., so I thought it was ignorant of people to blame Clinton for military cutbacks then and who will they blame now??????? Why, a Presidential fascist, of course. Do you understand the difference between "cutbacks" in the number of troops, ships, tanks and airplanes, and a consolidation of bases with no cutbacks? The former involved reductions, while the latter is maintaining levels, and is just moving them around. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhreeZone 20 #15 May 13, 2005 >The former involved reductions, while the latter is maintaining levels, and is just moving them around. Actually from all reading of this it seems like there will be a total reduction in about 10,000-15,000 positions worldwide. Not near the size of the downsizing from the early 90's but still a reduction in force.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #16 May 13, 2005 QuoteMilitary bases are not welfare. They should be founded upon military necessity, not in providing a government financial windfall for towns, congressional districts or states. I agree, and added the words in red.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #17 May 13, 2005 QuoteActually from all reading of this it seems like there will be a total reduction in about 10,000-15,000 positions worldwide. Not near the size of the downsizing from the early 90's but still a reduction in force. That makes sense, since a consolidation should eliminate some redundancy that was previously spread out in different locations. And much of that reduction might be civil service personnel who administer base operations, rather than combat military personnel. These kind of things have been going on for a long time. When I first joined the USMC in 1972, after boot camp, I was sent to a school that had just been consolidated for the Marines, Navy and Air Force. Previously, those three branches each had their own school. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #18 May 13, 2005 I know this would make me very unpopular in a lot of places, but I always wondered why we have so many bases in so many places. Really, are they all doing something that couldn't more efficiently be done somewhere else? (this obviously excludes any meant solely for physical defense, if we have any of those left) Does anyone other than locals and congressman want that many bases, forts, camps, grounds, etc?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #19 May 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteGood. This will help reduce the deficit. Funny how those who scream the loudest about Govt. spending are the first ones to denounce any effort to get it under control. Gore any Golden Ox but mine. Quote I don't scream about gov spending. Well you should, it's out of control. I view this as a positive step in the right direction. QuoteFurthermore, look at the title to the thread The difference is Clinton also cut back on the number of military personel and then claimed he had reduced the size of Govt. I see nothing yet to indicate Bush is reducing the size of the military, only that he's trying to consolidate it and make it more efficient. I'm surprised you can't see the difference. Well you should, it's out of control. I view this as a positive step in the right direction. Right, but you made inferrences that I was screaming about it and shouldn't post this thread. Maybe some on here scream about it, but not me. I have a bigger issue with the distribution of wealth the way it is, which lends to the argument of Fascism which no one has even tried to refute. The sole purpose of this thread was to indicate that: A. The base closures of the 90's were initiated by Congress, signed by Clinton. Who controlled the House and Senate during the 90's during the 4 sessions? B. Clinton was awarded blame for the closiures when he was a part of them, but not solely responsible. Clinton signed NAFTA after Bush 1 initiated it - is that all his doing/fault too? Well you should, it's out of control. I view this as a positive step in the right direction. So was it the same in the 90's when Congress initiated the base closures and Clinton signed it.... a step in the right direction? Or no, because you dislike Clinton, therefore offload the blame? The difference is Clinton also cut back on the number of military personel and then claimed he had reduced the size of Govt. I see nothing yet to indicate Bush is reducing the size of the military, only that he's trying to consolidate it and make it more efficient. I'm surprised you can't see the difference. Bush can't reduce the size of the military due to his hobby in the Middle East. Again, did Congress write and Clinton sign the reduction of force? Also, what was the harm done to the military's reduction on force? I was in the Air Force in the early 80's and there was a program called, "Palace Chase" that allowed full-timers to turn their active duty time into reserve time..... that was during the Reagan Admin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #20 May 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteIf you don't have the capacity to refute the notion that the US is Fascist, at least have the decency not to attempt a misdirection. The U.S. is not a fascist nation. I gave you the definition yesterday. That's sufficient to prove it. I realize, of course, that your life is filled with fascist demons: fascist cops, fascist corporations, fascist Presidents, fascist CEO's, and your latest - fiscal fascists. So I understand that in your world, there are fascists hiding in every corner. QuoteIf you look at the thread title, you will see that I'm drawing a parody between the rhetoric about all base closures of the 90's were all Clinton's fault/doing versus the current proposals being Bush's doing/fault. These things almost always start in Congress and get signed by the pres., so I thought it was ignorant of people to blame Clinton for military cutbacks then and who will they blame now??????? Why, a Presidential fascist, of course. Do you understand the difference between "cutbacks" in the number of troops, ships, tanks and airplanes, and a consolidation of bases with no cutbacks? The former involved reductions, while the latter is maintaining levels, and is just moving them around. The U.S. is not a fascist nation. I gave you the definition yesterday. That's sufficient to prove it. Oh geez, if you wrote it then it must be true. I have only addressed the fiscal Fascsim that is very present in the US today, I have never addressed the rest of the elements of Fascism. I will start a thread where we can discuss that and only that. BTW, the site I posted detailed elements of Fascism other than just the fiscal aspect that could easily be paralleled with the US. Why, a Presidential fascist, of course. That's it, post sarcasm whenever you get stuck - I expect it from many. Do you understand the difference between "cutbacks" in the number of troops, ships, tanks and airplanes, and a consolidation of bases with no cutbacks? The former involved reductions, while the latter is maintaining levels, and is just moving them around. Cutbacks are cutbacks. Something has to give, whether it be people, machines, bases, whatever. I worked for Douglas/Boening during the latter part of the Clinton Admin - I worked on the Apache Longbow, the primary weapon over there now, so again, I don't see your point that Clinton desicrated the military. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #21 May 13, 2005 Quote>The former involved reductions, while the latter is maintaining levels, and is just moving them around. Actually from all reading of this it seems like there will be a total reduction in about 10,000-15,000 positions worldwide. Not near the size of the downsizing from the early 90's but still a reduction in force. Without researching the total proposition of Congress, that's plausable considering there will be fewer bases with which to work. There has to be some proportion between base closures and personnel reduction...... I agree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #22 May 13, 2005 QuoteI know this would make me very unpopular in a lot of places, but I always wondered why we have so many bases in so many places. Really, are they all doing something that couldn't more efficiently be done somewhere else? (this obviously excludes any meant solely for physical defense, if we have any of those left) Does anyone other than locals and congressman want that many bases, forts, camps, grounds, etc? A lot of it is show of force, or, as it would be technically entitled, ..... Imperialism. Since there is no more need for the Cold War show of force, we should close some bases. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #23 May 13, 2005 QuoteThe difference is Clinton also cut back on the number of military personel and then claimed he had reduced the size of Govt. I see your point, but, technically, the military is a branch of the government, and a reduction in its size is a reduction in the size of government. QuoteI see nothing yet to indicate Bush is reducing the size of the military Really? That must be because he needs as many as he can get his hands on. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #24 May 14, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteGood. This will help reduce the deficit. Funny how those who scream the loudest about Govt. spending are the first ones to denounce any effort to get it under control. Gore any Golden Ox but mine. Quote I don't scream about gov spending. Well you should, it's out of control. I view this as a positive step in the right direction. QuoteFurthermore, look at the title to the thread The difference is Clinton also cut back on the number of military personel and then claimed he had reduced the size of Govt. I see nothing yet to indicate Bush is reducing the size of the military, only that he's trying to consolidate it and make it more efficient. I'm surprised you can't see the difference. Well you should, it's out of control. I view this as a positive step in the right direction. QuoteRight, but you made inferrences that I was screaming about it and shouldn't post this thread. Maybe some on here scream about it, but not me. I have a bigger issue with the distribution of wealth the way it is, which lends to the argument of Fascism which no one has even tried to refute. First of all if I was accusing you of something I would have directed my statement at you. I was refering to the gathering storm of dissent which will occur soon. Second of all I don't think the reason nobody has disputed your claims of Fascism has anything to do with their inability to do so. In my case I haven't responded because it's such a stupid claim. QuoteThe sole purpose of this thread was to indicate that: A. The base closures of the 90's were initiated by Congress, signed by Clinton. Who controlled the House and Senate during the 90's during the 4 sessions? I think most of us were aware of that. QuoteB. Clinton was awarded blame for the closiures when he was a part of them, but not solely responsible. Clinton signed NAFTA after Bush 1 initiated it - is that all his doing/fault too? I thought you just said it was about base closings and referred us to the title of the thread. Now you are saying it's also about NAFTA? Thats not in the title. Well you should, it's out of control. I view this as a positive step in the right direction. QuoteSo was it the same in the 90's when Congress initiated the base closures and Clinton signed it.... a step in the right direction? Or no, because you dislike Clinton, therefore offload the blame? Well, given your history, I should probably stop now, but I'll try one more time. With Clinton it wasn't about Base closings, it was about reduction in the number of Military personel which led to the closings. With Bush, it is consolidation and the only people losing their jobs are civilians ie cafeteria workers, janitors, house keeping etc. The difference is Clinton also cut back on the number of military personel and then claimed he had reduced the size of Govt. I see nothing yet to indicate Bush is reducing the size of the military, only that he's trying to consolidate it and make it more efficient. I'm surprised you can't see the difference. QuoteBush can't reduce the size of the military due to his hobby in the Middle East. Which Democrats also signed on to. QuoteAgain, did Congress write and Clinton sign the reduction of force? I don't remember. It's your thread, why don't you tell me? Quote Also, what was the harm done to the military's reduction on force? Lack of personel to fight a war if necessary. Why do you think we are depending so heavily on the Nat'l Guard? QuoteI was in the Air Force in the early 80's and there was a program called, "Palace Chase" that allowed full-timers to turn their active duty time into reserve time..... that was during the Reagan Admin. Part of the "Peace Dividend" brought on by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #25 May 14, 2005 Perhaps this article will help you noodle it out so you can try to understand the differences: Pentagon Plans Massive Overhaul of Bases By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer 2 hours ago WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is proposing the most sweeping changes to its network of military bases in modern history, a plan that would close 33 major facilities in 22 states and reconfigure hundreds of others to achieve savings and promote cooperation among the armed services. More than two years in the making, Friday's recommendations by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld represented his attempt to balance a whirl of competing forces. They include the changing threats facing the nation, massive federal deficits, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economies of local communities and political pressures. While state officials, community leaders, lobbyists and members of Congress combed through a thicket of data the Pentagon presented, the overarching theme of Rumsfeld's plan was surprisingly simple: To be more combat ready and affordable, the individual services must become leaner and more unified. An example: The Army would move the 7th Special Forces Group from Fort Bragg, N.C., to the Air Force's Eglin, Fla., base, so both services' elite troops could train together more easily. An airfield next to Eglin is the headquarters of Air Force Special Operations Command. Out would go the crown jewel of the Army hospital system: the venerable Walter Reed hospital in Washington. The hospital would move staff and services to the National Naval Medical Center in nearby Bethesda, Md., to create a new, expanded facility carrying the Walter Reed name. The military calls this "jointness" - the services combining their strengths rather than working separately. "Because jointness is key to creating military value - that was our goal," said Michael Wynne, the Pentagon's technology and weapons-buying chief who oversaw the base review project. Rumsfeld had said before releasing his report that closures would be fewer than once anticipated, in part because surplus space will be used to accommodate tens of thousands of troops scheduled to be brought home from Cold War-era bases in Europe and Asia. And while the number of bases he has asked to be shuttered is only slightly higher than in previous base-closing rounds dating to 1988, he put forth an extraordinary number of other changes and consolidations - 775 "minor closures and realignments" compared with 235 in the four previous rounds combined. The proposal submitted to Congress and an independent base closing commission evoked immediate howls of protest from members of Congress whose states stand to lose jobs - civilian and military - and the Pentagon pledged to lend a helping hand to the hardest hit communities. "It is wrong. It is shortsighted," Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said when he learned the closures would include the submarine base at Groton. He called it "cruel and unusual punishment" of his state, which would suffer a net loss of 7,133 military and 1,041 civilian jobs. Disappointment was also felt far from the corridors of power. In Texarkana, Texas, doughnut shop owner Danny Witt estimated he would lose $1,000 a month in sales if the Red River Army Depot and Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant are closed as proposed. "I hate it," he said. "It's devastating. I really thought we would miss the list." Many of the states that fared well are in the South and Southwest. Georgia would register a net gain of 8,677 military positions, although it would lose 1,971 civilian jobs, while Texas would gain nearly 9,000 military positions, with El Paso and San Antonio acquiring the most. Rumsfeld said he knows some communities will struggle to cope with job losses, but he made clear that the nation's security can be assured only if the military gets stronger. It's a theme Rumsfeld has sounded throughout his tenure at the Pentagon, and he alluded to it in a cover letter to the report to Anthony J. Principi, chairman of the base closing commission. "Increasing combat effectiveness and transforming U.S. forces are critical if our country is to be able to meet tomorrow's national defense challenges," he wrote. He recommended that a similar base-use review be done every five to 10 years. His was the first since 1995. The chiefs of all the services endorsed Rumsfeld's plan, but it will face intense scrutiny from Principi's panel, which will take public testimony from Rumsfeld on Monday. The commission has until Sept. 8 to present its recommendations to President Bush, who can accept or reject it whole, but not part. Congress likewise can accept or reject it in whole. Among other highlights of Rumsfeld's plan: -In addition to the 33 major bases that would be closed, another 29 would shrink in size and lose 400 or more jobs. Four of the latter are Navy facilities in California, including Naval Base Coronado. Fort Knox, Ky., would not close but would lose 4,867 military jobs while gaining 1,739 civilian slots. -The Air Force would consolidate its B-1 Lancer bomber fleet at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, resulting in the closure of Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D. The aerospace medicine program at Brooks City-Base, in San Antonio, Texas, would move to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. Wright-Patterson also would obtain the Navy's aero-medical research laboratory now located at Pensacola, Fla. -The Army would close Fort Monroe, Va., built in the early 1800s on the site of various fortifications that dated back to 1609, when the British erected defenses to protect the approaches to the Jamestown colony. Its main tenant, the Training and Doctrine Command, would be moved to Fort Eustis, Va. -About 12 million square feet of leased space would be vacated for more secure facilities owned by the government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
JohnRich 4 #14 May 13, 2005 QuoteIf you don't have the capacity to refute the notion that the US is Fascist, at least have the decency not to attempt a misdirection. The U.S. is not a fascist nation. I gave you the definition yesterday. That's sufficient to prove it. I realize, of course, that your life is filled with fascist demons: fascist cops, fascist corporations, fascist Presidents, fascist CEO's, and your latest - fiscal fascists. So I understand that in your world, there are fascists hiding in every corner. QuoteIf you look at the thread title, you will see that I'm drawing a parody between the rhetoric about all base closures of the 90's were all Clinton's fault/doing versus the current proposals being Bush's doing/fault. These things almost always start in Congress and get signed by the pres., so I thought it was ignorant of people to blame Clinton for military cutbacks then and who will they blame now??????? Why, a Presidential fascist, of course. Do you understand the difference between "cutbacks" in the number of troops, ships, tanks and airplanes, and a consolidation of bases with no cutbacks? The former involved reductions, while the latter is maintaining levels, and is just moving them around. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #15 May 13, 2005 >The former involved reductions, while the latter is maintaining levels, and is just moving them around. Actually from all reading of this it seems like there will be a total reduction in about 10,000-15,000 positions worldwide. Not near the size of the downsizing from the early 90's but still a reduction in force.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #16 May 13, 2005 QuoteMilitary bases are not welfare. They should be founded upon military necessity, not in providing a government financial windfall for towns, congressional districts or states. I agree, and added the words in red.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #17 May 13, 2005 QuoteActually from all reading of this it seems like there will be a total reduction in about 10,000-15,000 positions worldwide. Not near the size of the downsizing from the early 90's but still a reduction in force. That makes sense, since a consolidation should eliminate some redundancy that was previously spread out in different locations. And much of that reduction might be civil service personnel who administer base operations, rather than combat military personnel. These kind of things have been going on for a long time. When I first joined the USMC in 1972, after boot camp, I was sent to a school that had just been consolidated for the Marines, Navy and Air Force. Previously, those three branches each had their own school. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #18 May 13, 2005 I know this would make me very unpopular in a lot of places, but I always wondered why we have so many bases in so many places. Really, are they all doing something that couldn't more efficiently be done somewhere else? (this obviously excludes any meant solely for physical defense, if we have any of those left) Does anyone other than locals and congressman want that many bases, forts, camps, grounds, etc?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #19 May 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteGood. This will help reduce the deficit. Funny how those who scream the loudest about Govt. spending are the first ones to denounce any effort to get it under control. Gore any Golden Ox but mine. Quote I don't scream about gov spending. Well you should, it's out of control. I view this as a positive step in the right direction. QuoteFurthermore, look at the title to the thread The difference is Clinton also cut back on the number of military personel and then claimed he had reduced the size of Govt. I see nothing yet to indicate Bush is reducing the size of the military, only that he's trying to consolidate it and make it more efficient. I'm surprised you can't see the difference. Well you should, it's out of control. I view this as a positive step in the right direction. Right, but you made inferrences that I was screaming about it and shouldn't post this thread. Maybe some on here scream about it, but not me. I have a bigger issue with the distribution of wealth the way it is, which lends to the argument of Fascism which no one has even tried to refute. The sole purpose of this thread was to indicate that: A. The base closures of the 90's were initiated by Congress, signed by Clinton. Who controlled the House and Senate during the 90's during the 4 sessions? B. Clinton was awarded blame for the closiures when he was a part of them, but not solely responsible. Clinton signed NAFTA after Bush 1 initiated it - is that all his doing/fault too? Well you should, it's out of control. I view this as a positive step in the right direction. So was it the same in the 90's when Congress initiated the base closures and Clinton signed it.... a step in the right direction? Or no, because you dislike Clinton, therefore offload the blame? The difference is Clinton also cut back on the number of military personel and then claimed he had reduced the size of Govt. I see nothing yet to indicate Bush is reducing the size of the military, only that he's trying to consolidate it and make it more efficient. I'm surprised you can't see the difference. Bush can't reduce the size of the military due to his hobby in the Middle East. Again, did Congress write and Clinton sign the reduction of force? Also, what was the harm done to the military's reduction on force? I was in the Air Force in the early 80's and there was a program called, "Palace Chase" that allowed full-timers to turn their active duty time into reserve time..... that was during the Reagan Admin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #20 May 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteIf you don't have the capacity to refute the notion that the US is Fascist, at least have the decency not to attempt a misdirection. The U.S. is not a fascist nation. I gave you the definition yesterday. That's sufficient to prove it. I realize, of course, that your life is filled with fascist demons: fascist cops, fascist corporations, fascist Presidents, fascist CEO's, and your latest - fiscal fascists. So I understand that in your world, there are fascists hiding in every corner. QuoteIf you look at the thread title, you will see that I'm drawing a parody between the rhetoric about all base closures of the 90's were all Clinton's fault/doing versus the current proposals being Bush's doing/fault. These things almost always start in Congress and get signed by the pres., so I thought it was ignorant of people to blame Clinton for military cutbacks then and who will they blame now??????? Why, a Presidential fascist, of course. Do you understand the difference between "cutbacks" in the number of troops, ships, tanks and airplanes, and a consolidation of bases with no cutbacks? The former involved reductions, while the latter is maintaining levels, and is just moving them around. The U.S. is not a fascist nation. I gave you the definition yesterday. That's sufficient to prove it. Oh geez, if you wrote it then it must be true. I have only addressed the fiscal Fascsim that is very present in the US today, I have never addressed the rest of the elements of Fascism. I will start a thread where we can discuss that and only that. BTW, the site I posted detailed elements of Fascism other than just the fiscal aspect that could easily be paralleled with the US. Why, a Presidential fascist, of course. That's it, post sarcasm whenever you get stuck - I expect it from many. Do you understand the difference between "cutbacks" in the number of troops, ships, tanks and airplanes, and a consolidation of bases with no cutbacks? The former involved reductions, while the latter is maintaining levels, and is just moving them around. Cutbacks are cutbacks. Something has to give, whether it be people, machines, bases, whatever. I worked for Douglas/Boening during the latter part of the Clinton Admin - I worked on the Apache Longbow, the primary weapon over there now, so again, I don't see your point that Clinton desicrated the military. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #21 May 13, 2005 Quote>The former involved reductions, while the latter is maintaining levels, and is just moving them around. Actually from all reading of this it seems like there will be a total reduction in about 10,000-15,000 positions worldwide. Not near the size of the downsizing from the early 90's but still a reduction in force. Without researching the total proposition of Congress, that's plausable considering there will be fewer bases with which to work. There has to be some proportion between base closures and personnel reduction...... I agree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #22 May 13, 2005 QuoteI know this would make me very unpopular in a lot of places, but I always wondered why we have so many bases in so many places. Really, are they all doing something that couldn't more efficiently be done somewhere else? (this obviously excludes any meant solely for physical defense, if we have any of those left) Does anyone other than locals and congressman want that many bases, forts, camps, grounds, etc? A lot of it is show of force, or, as it would be technically entitled, ..... Imperialism. Since there is no more need for the Cold War show of force, we should close some bases. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #23 May 13, 2005 QuoteThe difference is Clinton also cut back on the number of military personel and then claimed he had reduced the size of Govt. I see your point, but, technically, the military is a branch of the government, and a reduction in its size is a reduction in the size of government. QuoteI see nothing yet to indicate Bush is reducing the size of the military Really? That must be because he needs as many as he can get his hands on. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #24 May 14, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteGood. This will help reduce the deficit. Funny how those who scream the loudest about Govt. spending are the first ones to denounce any effort to get it under control. Gore any Golden Ox but mine. Quote I don't scream about gov spending. Well you should, it's out of control. I view this as a positive step in the right direction. QuoteFurthermore, look at the title to the thread The difference is Clinton also cut back on the number of military personel and then claimed he had reduced the size of Govt. I see nothing yet to indicate Bush is reducing the size of the military, only that he's trying to consolidate it and make it more efficient. I'm surprised you can't see the difference. Well you should, it's out of control. I view this as a positive step in the right direction. QuoteRight, but you made inferrences that I was screaming about it and shouldn't post this thread. Maybe some on here scream about it, but not me. I have a bigger issue with the distribution of wealth the way it is, which lends to the argument of Fascism which no one has even tried to refute. First of all if I was accusing you of something I would have directed my statement at you. I was refering to the gathering storm of dissent which will occur soon. Second of all I don't think the reason nobody has disputed your claims of Fascism has anything to do with their inability to do so. In my case I haven't responded because it's such a stupid claim. QuoteThe sole purpose of this thread was to indicate that: A. The base closures of the 90's were initiated by Congress, signed by Clinton. Who controlled the House and Senate during the 90's during the 4 sessions? I think most of us were aware of that. QuoteB. Clinton was awarded blame for the closiures when he was a part of them, but not solely responsible. Clinton signed NAFTA after Bush 1 initiated it - is that all his doing/fault too? I thought you just said it was about base closings and referred us to the title of the thread. Now you are saying it's also about NAFTA? Thats not in the title. Well you should, it's out of control. I view this as a positive step in the right direction. QuoteSo was it the same in the 90's when Congress initiated the base closures and Clinton signed it.... a step in the right direction? Or no, because you dislike Clinton, therefore offload the blame? Well, given your history, I should probably stop now, but I'll try one more time. With Clinton it wasn't about Base closings, it was about reduction in the number of Military personel which led to the closings. With Bush, it is consolidation and the only people losing their jobs are civilians ie cafeteria workers, janitors, house keeping etc. The difference is Clinton also cut back on the number of military personel and then claimed he had reduced the size of Govt. I see nothing yet to indicate Bush is reducing the size of the military, only that he's trying to consolidate it and make it more efficient. I'm surprised you can't see the difference. QuoteBush can't reduce the size of the military due to his hobby in the Middle East. Which Democrats also signed on to. QuoteAgain, did Congress write and Clinton sign the reduction of force? I don't remember. It's your thread, why don't you tell me? Quote Also, what was the harm done to the military's reduction on force? Lack of personel to fight a war if necessary. Why do you think we are depending so heavily on the Nat'l Guard? QuoteI was in the Air Force in the early 80's and there was a program called, "Palace Chase" that allowed full-timers to turn their active duty time into reserve time..... that was during the Reagan Admin. Part of the "Peace Dividend" brought on by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #25 May 14, 2005 Perhaps this article will help you noodle it out so you can try to understand the differences: Pentagon Plans Massive Overhaul of Bases By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer 2 hours ago WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is proposing the most sweeping changes to its network of military bases in modern history, a plan that would close 33 major facilities in 22 states and reconfigure hundreds of others to achieve savings and promote cooperation among the armed services. More than two years in the making, Friday's recommendations by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld represented his attempt to balance a whirl of competing forces. They include the changing threats facing the nation, massive federal deficits, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economies of local communities and political pressures. While state officials, community leaders, lobbyists and members of Congress combed through a thicket of data the Pentagon presented, the overarching theme of Rumsfeld's plan was surprisingly simple: To be more combat ready and affordable, the individual services must become leaner and more unified. An example: The Army would move the 7th Special Forces Group from Fort Bragg, N.C., to the Air Force's Eglin, Fla., base, so both services' elite troops could train together more easily. An airfield next to Eglin is the headquarters of Air Force Special Operations Command. Out would go the crown jewel of the Army hospital system: the venerable Walter Reed hospital in Washington. The hospital would move staff and services to the National Naval Medical Center in nearby Bethesda, Md., to create a new, expanded facility carrying the Walter Reed name. The military calls this "jointness" - the services combining their strengths rather than working separately. "Because jointness is key to creating military value - that was our goal," said Michael Wynne, the Pentagon's technology and weapons-buying chief who oversaw the base review project. Rumsfeld had said before releasing his report that closures would be fewer than once anticipated, in part because surplus space will be used to accommodate tens of thousands of troops scheduled to be brought home from Cold War-era bases in Europe and Asia. And while the number of bases he has asked to be shuttered is only slightly higher than in previous base-closing rounds dating to 1988, he put forth an extraordinary number of other changes and consolidations - 775 "minor closures and realignments" compared with 235 in the four previous rounds combined. The proposal submitted to Congress and an independent base closing commission evoked immediate howls of protest from members of Congress whose states stand to lose jobs - civilian and military - and the Pentagon pledged to lend a helping hand to the hardest hit communities. "It is wrong. It is shortsighted," Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said when he learned the closures would include the submarine base at Groton. He called it "cruel and unusual punishment" of his state, which would suffer a net loss of 7,133 military and 1,041 civilian jobs. Disappointment was also felt far from the corridors of power. In Texarkana, Texas, doughnut shop owner Danny Witt estimated he would lose $1,000 a month in sales if the Red River Army Depot and Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant are closed as proposed. "I hate it," he said. "It's devastating. I really thought we would miss the list." Many of the states that fared well are in the South and Southwest. Georgia would register a net gain of 8,677 military positions, although it would lose 1,971 civilian jobs, while Texas would gain nearly 9,000 military positions, with El Paso and San Antonio acquiring the most. Rumsfeld said he knows some communities will struggle to cope with job losses, but he made clear that the nation's security can be assured only if the military gets stronger. It's a theme Rumsfeld has sounded throughout his tenure at the Pentagon, and he alluded to it in a cover letter to the report to Anthony J. Principi, chairman of the base closing commission. "Increasing combat effectiveness and transforming U.S. forces are critical if our country is to be able to meet tomorrow's national defense challenges," he wrote. He recommended that a similar base-use review be done every five to 10 years. His was the first since 1995. The chiefs of all the services endorsed Rumsfeld's plan, but it will face intense scrutiny from Principi's panel, which will take public testimony from Rumsfeld on Monday. The commission has until Sept. 8 to present its recommendations to President Bush, who can accept or reject it whole, but not part. Congress likewise can accept or reject it in whole. Among other highlights of Rumsfeld's plan: -In addition to the 33 major bases that would be closed, another 29 would shrink in size and lose 400 or more jobs. Four of the latter are Navy facilities in California, including Naval Base Coronado. Fort Knox, Ky., would not close but would lose 4,867 military jobs while gaining 1,739 civilian slots. -The Air Force would consolidate its B-1 Lancer bomber fleet at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, resulting in the closure of Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D. The aerospace medicine program at Brooks City-Base, in San Antonio, Texas, would move to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. Wright-Patterson also would obtain the Navy's aero-medical research laboratory now located at Pensacola, Fla. -The Army would close Fort Monroe, Va., built in the early 1800s on the site of various fortifications that dated back to 1609, when the British erected defenses to protect the approaches to the Jamestown colony. Its main tenant, the Training and Doctrine Command, would be moved to Fort Eustis, Va. -About 12 million square feet of leased space would be vacated for more secure facilities owned by the government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
EBSB52 0 #20 May 13, 2005 QuoteQuoteIf you don't have the capacity to refute the notion that the US is Fascist, at least have the decency not to attempt a misdirection. The U.S. is not a fascist nation. I gave you the definition yesterday. That's sufficient to prove it. I realize, of course, that your life is filled with fascist demons: fascist cops, fascist corporations, fascist Presidents, fascist CEO's, and your latest - fiscal fascists. So I understand that in your world, there are fascists hiding in every corner. QuoteIf you look at the thread title, you will see that I'm drawing a parody between the rhetoric about all base closures of the 90's were all Clinton's fault/doing versus the current proposals being Bush's doing/fault. These things almost always start in Congress and get signed by the pres., so I thought it was ignorant of people to blame Clinton for military cutbacks then and who will they blame now??????? Why, a Presidential fascist, of course. Do you understand the difference between "cutbacks" in the number of troops, ships, tanks and airplanes, and a consolidation of bases with no cutbacks? The former involved reductions, while the latter is maintaining levels, and is just moving them around. The U.S. is not a fascist nation. I gave you the definition yesterday. That's sufficient to prove it. Oh geez, if you wrote it then it must be true. I have only addressed the fiscal Fascsim that is very present in the US today, I have never addressed the rest of the elements of Fascism. I will start a thread where we can discuss that and only that. BTW, the site I posted detailed elements of Fascism other than just the fiscal aspect that could easily be paralleled with the US. Why, a Presidential fascist, of course. That's it, post sarcasm whenever you get stuck - I expect it from many. Do you understand the difference between "cutbacks" in the number of troops, ships, tanks and airplanes, and a consolidation of bases with no cutbacks? The former involved reductions, while the latter is maintaining levels, and is just moving them around. Cutbacks are cutbacks. Something has to give, whether it be people, machines, bases, whatever. I worked for Douglas/Boening during the latter part of the Clinton Admin - I worked on the Apache Longbow, the primary weapon over there now, so again, I don't see your point that Clinton desicrated the military. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #21 May 13, 2005 Quote>The former involved reductions, while the latter is maintaining levels, and is just moving them around. Actually from all reading of this it seems like there will be a total reduction in about 10,000-15,000 positions worldwide. Not near the size of the downsizing from the early 90's but still a reduction in force. Without researching the total proposition of Congress, that's plausable considering there will be fewer bases with which to work. There has to be some proportion between base closures and personnel reduction...... I agree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #22 May 13, 2005 QuoteI know this would make me very unpopular in a lot of places, but I always wondered why we have so many bases in so many places. Really, are they all doing something that couldn't more efficiently be done somewhere else? (this obviously excludes any meant solely for physical defense, if we have any of those left) Does anyone other than locals and congressman want that many bases, forts, camps, grounds, etc? A lot of it is show of force, or, as it would be technically entitled, ..... Imperialism. Since there is no more need for the Cold War show of force, we should close some bases. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #23 May 13, 2005 QuoteThe difference is Clinton also cut back on the number of military personel and then claimed he had reduced the size of Govt. I see your point, but, technically, the military is a branch of the government, and a reduction in its size is a reduction in the size of government. QuoteI see nothing yet to indicate Bush is reducing the size of the military Really? That must be because he needs as many as he can get his hands on. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #24 May 14, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteGood. This will help reduce the deficit. Funny how those who scream the loudest about Govt. spending are the first ones to denounce any effort to get it under control. Gore any Golden Ox but mine. Quote I don't scream about gov spending. Well you should, it's out of control. I view this as a positive step in the right direction. QuoteFurthermore, look at the title to the thread The difference is Clinton also cut back on the number of military personel and then claimed he had reduced the size of Govt. I see nothing yet to indicate Bush is reducing the size of the military, only that he's trying to consolidate it and make it more efficient. I'm surprised you can't see the difference. Well you should, it's out of control. I view this as a positive step in the right direction. QuoteRight, but you made inferrences that I was screaming about it and shouldn't post this thread. Maybe some on here scream about it, but not me. I have a bigger issue with the distribution of wealth the way it is, which lends to the argument of Fascism which no one has even tried to refute. First of all if I was accusing you of something I would have directed my statement at you. I was refering to the gathering storm of dissent which will occur soon. Second of all I don't think the reason nobody has disputed your claims of Fascism has anything to do with their inability to do so. In my case I haven't responded because it's such a stupid claim. QuoteThe sole purpose of this thread was to indicate that: A. The base closures of the 90's were initiated by Congress, signed by Clinton. Who controlled the House and Senate during the 90's during the 4 sessions? I think most of us were aware of that. QuoteB. Clinton was awarded blame for the closiures when he was a part of them, but not solely responsible. Clinton signed NAFTA after Bush 1 initiated it - is that all his doing/fault too? I thought you just said it was about base closings and referred us to the title of the thread. Now you are saying it's also about NAFTA? Thats not in the title. Well you should, it's out of control. I view this as a positive step in the right direction. QuoteSo was it the same in the 90's when Congress initiated the base closures and Clinton signed it.... a step in the right direction? Or no, because you dislike Clinton, therefore offload the blame? Well, given your history, I should probably stop now, but I'll try one more time. With Clinton it wasn't about Base closings, it was about reduction in the number of Military personel which led to the closings. With Bush, it is consolidation and the only people losing their jobs are civilians ie cafeteria workers, janitors, house keeping etc. The difference is Clinton also cut back on the number of military personel and then claimed he had reduced the size of Govt. I see nothing yet to indicate Bush is reducing the size of the military, only that he's trying to consolidate it and make it more efficient. I'm surprised you can't see the difference. QuoteBush can't reduce the size of the military due to his hobby in the Middle East. Which Democrats also signed on to. QuoteAgain, did Congress write and Clinton sign the reduction of force? I don't remember. It's your thread, why don't you tell me? Quote Also, what was the harm done to the military's reduction on force? Lack of personel to fight a war if necessary. Why do you think we are depending so heavily on the Nat'l Guard? QuoteI was in the Air Force in the early 80's and there was a program called, "Palace Chase" that allowed full-timers to turn their active duty time into reserve time..... that was during the Reagan Admin. Part of the "Peace Dividend" brought on by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #25 May 14, 2005 Perhaps this article will help you noodle it out so you can try to understand the differences: Pentagon Plans Massive Overhaul of Bases By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer 2 hours ago WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is proposing the most sweeping changes to its network of military bases in modern history, a plan that would close 33 major facilities in 22 states and reconfigure hundreds of others to achieve savings and promote cooperation among the armed services. More than two years in the making, Friday's recommendations by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld represented his attempt to balance a whirl of competing forces. They include the changing threats facing the nation, massive federal deficits, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economies of local communities and political pressures. While state officials, community leaders, lobbyists and members of Congress combed through a thicket of data the Pentagon presented, the overarching theme of Rumsfeld's plan was surprisingly simple: To be more combat ready and affordable, the individual services must become leaner and more unified. An example: The Army would move the 7th Special Forces Group from Fort Bragg, N.C., to the Air Force's Eglin, Fla., base, so both services' elite troops could train together more easily. An airfield next to Eglin is the headquarters of Air Force Special Operations Command. Out would go the crown jewel of the Army hospital system: the venerable Walter Reed hospital in Washington. The hospital would move staff and services to the National Naval Medical Center in nearby Bethesda, Md., to create a new, expanded facility carrying the Walter Reed name. The military calls this "jointness" - the services combining their strengths rather than working separately. "Because jointness is key to creating military value - that was our goal," said Michael Wynne, the Pentagon's technology and weapons-buying chief who oversaw the base review project. Rumsfeld had said before releasing his report that closures would be fewer than once anticipated, in part because surplus space will be used to accommodate tens of thousands of troops scheduled to be brought home from Cold War-era bases in Europe and Asia. And while the number of bases he has asked to be shuttered is only slightly higher than in previous base-closing rounds dating to 1988, he put forth an extraordinary number of other changes and consolidations - 775 "minor closures and realignments" compared with 235 in the four previous rounds combined. The proposal submitted to Congress and an independent base closing commission evoked immediate howls of protest from members of Congress whose states stand to lose jobs - civilian and military - and the Pentagon pledged to lend a helping hand to the hardest hit communities. "It is wrong. It is shortsighted," Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said when he learned the closures would include the submarine base at Groton. He called it "cruel and unusual punishment" of his state, which would suffer a net loss of 7,133 military and 1,041 civilian jobs. Disappointment was also felt far from the corridors of power. In Texarkana, Texas, doughnut shop owner Danny Witt estimated he would lose $1,000 a month in sales if the Red River Army Depot and Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant are closed as proposed. "I hate it," he said. "It's devastating. I really thought we would miss the list." Many of the states that fared well are in the South and Southwest. Georgia would register a net gain of 8,677 military positions, although it would lose 1,971 civilian jobs, while Texas would gain nearly 9,000 military positions, with El Paso and San Antonio acquiring the most. Rumsfeld said he knows some communities will struggle to cope with job losses, but he made clear that the nation's security can be assured only if the military gets stronger. It's a theme Rumsfeld has sounded throughout his tenure at the Pentagon, and he alluded to it in a cover letter to the report to Anthony J. Principi, chairman of the base closing commission. "Increasing combat effectiveness and transforming U.S. forces are critical if our country is to be able to meet tomorrow's national defense challenges," he wrote. He recommended that a similar base-use review be done every five to 10 years. His was the first since 1995. The chiefs of all the services endorsed Rumsfeld's plan, but it will face intense scrutiny from Principi's panel, which will take public testimony from Rumsfeld on Monday. The commission has until Sept. 8 to present its recommendations to President Bush, who can accept or reject it whole, but not part. Congress likewise can accept or reject it in whole. Among other highlights of Rumsfeld's plan: -In addition to the 33 major bases that would be closed, another 29 would shrink in size and lose 400 or more jobs. Four of the latter are Navy facilities in California, including Naval Base Coronado. Fort Knox, Ky., would not close but would lose 4,867 military jobs while gaining 1,739 civilian slots. -The Air Force would consolidate its B-1 Lancer bomber fleet at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, resulting in the closure of Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D. The aerospace medicine program at Brooks City-Base, in San Antonio, Texas, would move to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. Wright-Patterson also would obtain the Navy's aero-medical research laboratory now located at Pensacola, Fla. -The Army would close Fort Monroe, Va., built in the early 1800s on the site of various fortifications that dated back to 1609, when the British erected defenses to protect the approaches to the Jamestown colony. Its main tenant, the Training and Doctrine Command, would be moved to Fort Eustis, Va. -About 12 million square feet of leased space would be vacated for more secure facilities owned by the government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Gravitymaster 0 #25 May 14, 2005 Perhaps this article will help you noodle it out so you can try to understand the differences: Pentagon Plans Massive Overhaul of Bases By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer 2 hours ago WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is proposing the most sweeping changes to its network of military bases in modern history, a plan that would close 33 major facilities in 22 states and reconfigure hundreds of others to achieve savings and promote cooperation among the armed services. More than two years in the making, Friday's recommendations by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld represented his attempt to balance a whirl of competing forces. They include the changing threats facing the nation, massive federal deficits, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economies of local communities and political pressures. While state officials, community leaders, lobbyists and members of Congress combed through a thicket of data the Pentagon presented, the overarching theme of Rumsfeld's plan was surprisingly simple: To be more combat ready and affordable, the individual services must become leaner and more unified. An example: The Army would move the 7th Special Forces Group from Fort Bragg, N.C., to the Air Force's Eglin, Fla., base, so both services' elite troops could train together more easily. An airfield next to Eglin is the headquarters of Air Force Special Operations Command. Out would go the crown jewel of the Army hospital system: the venerable Walter Reed hospital in Washington. The hospital would move staff and services to the National Naval Medical Center in nearby Bethesda, Md., to create a new, expanded facility carrying the Walter Reed name. The military calls this "jointness" - the services combining their strengths rather than working separately. "Because jointness is key to creating military value - that was our goal," said Michael Wynne, the Pentagon's technology and weapons-buying chief who oversaw the base review project. Rumsfeld had said before releasing his report that closures would be fewer than once anticipated, in part because surplus space will be used to accommodate tens of thousands of troops scheduled to be brought home from Cold War-era bases in Europe and Asia. And while the number of bases he has asked to be shuttered is only slightly higher than in previous base-closing rounds dating to 1988, he put forth an extraordinary number of other changes and consolidations - 775 "minor closures and realignments" compared with 235 in the four previous rounds combined. The proposal submitted to Congress and an independent base closing commission evoked immediate howls of protest from members of Congress whose states stand to lose jobs - civilian and military - and the Pentagon pledged to lend a helping hand to the hardest hit communities. "It is wrong. It is shortsighted," Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said when he learned the closures would include the submarine base at Groton. He called it "cruel and unusual punishment" of his state, which would suffer a net loss of 7,133 military and 1,041 civilian jobs. Disappointment was also felt far from the corridors of power. In Texarkana, Texas, doughnut shop owner Danny Witt estimated he would lose $1,000 a month in sales if the Red River Army Depot and Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant are closed as proposed. "I hate it," he said. "It's devastating. I really thought we would miss the list." Many of the states that fared well are in the South and Southwest. Georgia would register a net gain of 8,677 military positions, although it would lose 1,971 civilian jobs, while Texas would gain nearly 9,000 military positions, with El Paso and San Antonio acquiring the most. Rumsfeld said he knows some communities will struggle to cope with job losses, but he made clear that the nation's security can be assured only if the military gets stronger. It's a theme Rumsfeld has sounded throughout his tenure at the Pentagon, and he alluded to it in a cover letter to the report to Anthony J. Principi, chairman of the base closing commission. "Increasing combat effectiveness and transforming U.S. forces are critical if our country is to be able to meet tomorrow's national defense challenges," he wrote. He recommended that a similar base-use review be done every five to 10 years. His was the first since 1995. The chiefs of all the services endorsed Rumsfeld's plan, but it will face intense scrutiny from Principi's panel, which will take public testimony from Rumsfeld on Monday. The commission has until Sept. 8 to present its recommendations to President Bush, who can accept or reject it whole, but not part. Congress likewise can accept or reject it in whole. Among other highlights of Rumsfeld's plan: -In addition to the 33 major bases that would be closed, another 29 would shrink in size and lose 400 or more jobs. Four of the latter are Navy facilities in California, including Naval Base Coronado. Fort Knox, Ky., would not close but would lose 4,867 military jobs while gaining 1,739 civilian slots. -The Air Force would consolidate its B-1 Lancer bomber fleet at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, resulting in the closure of Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D. The aerospace medicine program at Brooks City-Base, in San Antonio, Texas, would move to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. Wright-Patterson also would obtain the Navy's aero-medical research laboratory now located at Pensacola, Fla. -The Army would close Fort Monroe, Va., built in the early 1800s on the site of various fortifications that dated back to 1609, when the British erected defenses to protect the approaches to the Jamestown colony. Its main tenant, the Training and Doctrine Command, would be moved to Fort Eustis, Va. -About 12 million square feet of leased space would be vacated for more secure facilities owned by the government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
