Thumbs up to the President

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

And I think he delivered this week. Cheers for the White House and the Russian government!

Yeah, now the Russians can get back to focusing on trading bombs with the Chechens.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

I didn't say that other people do it, I wrote: "Other countries do and manage it."

I know what you said. "Other countries do and manage it" does not explain how you intend to implement and sustain our own. "Other people do it" is not a justification for moving that direction. Further, you can't compare the current bill to any other country's program. I doubt you can even give me something from the bill that would be benneficial to the masses.

Quote

No, we can't afford to spend 8 times, so we will transition to 6 times, then to 4 times and hopefully less until we stop hammering the budget and still maintain the strongest military in the world.

If you want to cut the military budget in half, that's your opinion. If you want to cut the budget in half and sitll have the strongest military in the world then you are dilusional.

Quote

Quit acting like you don't get it, simple military reduction.

Military budget reduction is simple. Just cut the funding. Your pipe dream of cutting the budget in half and continuing to be the world's strongest military is nothing short of insanity. The current inventory of aircraft is already 30+ years old and literally falling out of the sky. It's just another wacked out liberal talking point to simply cut the military budget and magically fund everything.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Military budget reduction is simple. Just cut the funding.

That won't work. If you try a blanket cut then the private contractors will maintain their slice of the waste and the cuts will actually affect troop supplies and equipment. That way the headline will read "politician X endangers troops". IMO the cuts need to be targeted specifically and implemented VERY publicly. We should start by forcing all IT contractors to explain why they can't transition off of FORTRAN and COBOL. The Pentagon bookkeeping is so messed up that it literally cannot be audited. Too many people are making too much money trying to maintain the confusing status quo. We waste more money than other countries spend for their entire military budgets.

[kallend 2,230]

Quote

Quote

Military budget reduction is simple. Just cut the funding.

That won't work. If you try a blanket cut then the private contractors will maintain their slice of the waste and the cuts will actually affect troop supplies and equipment. That way the headline will read "politician X endangers troops". IMO the cuts need to be targeted specifically and implemented VERY publicly. We should start by forcing all IT contractors to explain why they can't transition off of FORTRAN and COBOL. The Pentagon bookkeeping is so messed up that it literally cannot be audited. Too many people are making too much money trying to maintain the confusing status quo. We waste more money than other countries spend for their entire military budgets.

I LIKE Fortran
Continue

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[champu 1]

Quote

Military budget reduction is simple. Just cut the funding. Your pipe dream of cutting the budget in half and continuing to be the world's strongest military is nothing short of insanity. The current inventory of aircraft is already 30+ years old and literally falling out of the sky. It's just another wacked out liberal talking point to simply cut the military budget and magically fund everything.

Certain aspects of the military budget could be reduced significantly without adversely affecting capability. The strategic nuclear arsenal is one example. What it will take is for congress to give the pentagon a goal and then for congress to actually listen to the pentagon when they come back with cost cutting ideas.

Congresspersons suddenly and completely forget what they were trying to accomplish the instant their constituency is threatened. This attention deficit disorder is often overlooked and is a larger part of the problem than either the "military" or "industry" aspects of the military-industrial complex.

I do agree with you, however, that the trades presented about, "just one less tank and we could power all the koala orphanages in the world for a week" are asinine. It makes no sense to set out to reduce spending only to earmark every dollar saved for something else. Take a look at the budget and tell me how quickly, say, $10B saved in military spending (rough figure for the cancellation of a medium to large program) would be swallowed up elsewhere and forgotten.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

That won't work. If you try a blanket cut then the private contractors will maintain their slice of the waste and the cuts will actually affect troop supplies and equipment. That way the headline will read "politician X endangers troops". IMO the cuts need to be targeted specifically and implemented VERY publicly. We should start by forcing all IT contractors to explain why they can't transition off of FORTRAN and COBOL. The Pentagon bookkeeping is so messed up that it literally cannot be audited. Too many people are making too much money trying to maintain the confusing status quo. We waste more money than other countries spend for their entire military budgets.

I LIKE Fortran
Continue

I like broadswords

[juanesky 0]

Quote

Quote

Yea, unless that child needs HC and his parents are poor. Oh yea, the very Bill NaziBush vetoed was done 2 weeks after NaziObama took office. Kind of ironic that pic you posted with HC as the theme.

There fixed it for you.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Gawain 0]

Quote

The President has agreed not only to renewal of the Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty of 1991, but also to a bilateral nuclear arms reduction by the Russians and the US. I applaud moves like this. I've even got to tip my hat to Hillary Clinton - things like this don't happen without the involvement of the Secretary of State.

I see the Democrats and Republicans in the Senate working together to get this ratified, too. Sure, there will be holdouts, etc., those who say we are giving in too much. Security issues are typically those that get fairly good bipartisan approval or rejection.

I didn't want to tip my opinion into this until other factors had time to sink in. I do not believe this treaty will be ratified by the Senate this year. I give it a 50/50 chance after the election, depending on the results in November. If there is a significant swing in Congress, I do not think there will be droves of Republicans willing to cross the aisle without some iron-clad commitments to the US defense posture which is looking like a joke based on activities in Central Asia (Kyrgyzstan) and in Japan, as well as foreign policy disaster with Israel and China. All this is on the heels of the "reset" button, Region 1 DVDs, iPods, bowing, and complete lack of tangible results in major venues at home and abroad.

With such an anemic posture, SecState Clinton needs to show some bones to President Obama to prop things up. Otherwise, I'm not sure I could see her serving through the whole first term. Remarks like "like it or not...we're the Superpower" need to be erased from the teleprompter and replaced with "The United States will use its role as a leader to promote freedom and liberty around the world, halt nuclear proliferation by any means possible, and finally put a stop to state sponsors of terrorism who disrupt the peace process at every turn."

I think it's going to take that much, and more, to get a 67-vote+ ratification of a treaty that Russia can bow out of at any time...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yea, unless that child needs HC and his parents are poor. Oh yea, the very Bill NaziBush vetoed was done 2 weeks after NaziObama took office. Kind of ironic that pic you posted with HC as the theme.

There fixed it for you.

Really? Only if you messed up the definition of Nazism

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 3,173]

>Only if you messed up the definition of Nazism

Well, the terrorist label didn't stick, and people are getting really sick of the tired "socialist" rhetoric, so I guess Nazi is next. (The actual definition doesn't matter, of course - they only care about the emotional response their words generate.)

[shropshire 0]

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome