If we cut their budget, they're going to want more money.

If they want more money, they're going to need to convince legislators that they need more money.

If they want to convince legislators that they need more money, they're going to need to convince legislators that we need another war.

If they want to convince legislators that we need another way, they're going to farking do it because our country is led by a bunch of war-mongering halfwits.

Therefore, if we cut their budget, there will be more war. Stupid as hell, morally wrong as hell, but technically possible.

Freakman: Our economy depends on global trade enabled by sea transportation and must be protected

Trade route protection absolutely requires deployment and maintenance of 11 carrier groups. *rolls eyes*

oldass31: I wonder what kind of US military power my generation will project after the country goes completely bankrupt because the baby boomers want to continue living in their selfishly sick fantasy where wars pay for themselves, socialized medicine doesn't exist if you're 65, and more tax cuts will solve our budget problems no matter what.

None of that matters. Root cause analysis. Bipartisan compromise. Negotiating with our former enemies. Leveraging our assets for future investment.

There is a black man in the white house. Don't you see? Can't you here me!?!! There is a BLACK man in the WHITE house!

It's almost as if someone who has spent their entire career workign for the industrial military complex may have a bias opinion about governmental spending for the industrial military complex. We are no longer waging 2 wars.....why the FARK does the GOP think we need to keep our military budget (the one that bankrupted our country) at the levels required to fund 2 wars?

The GOP has no problem with pork barrell spending as long as it goes for defense. They are not, and have never been the party of fiscal conservatism. They like to point at poor people on welfare and claim government moochers when in fact the corporate welfare is far more sickening and an exponentially greater waste of money than any other portion of our federal budget.

This is why the contemporary GOP can fark off. Cutting programs for the poor, fighting to protect tax breaks for hte top 1%, and spending insane amounts of money in an industry that primarily operates on non-competitive funding crony capitalism. In other words GOP = the rich farkers who pay for our elections will be represented, but everyone else can fark off...including most of the working class folks who are still too caught up in our rhetoric to realize that we're farking them over.

PanicMan: Cythraul: Okay, so since this country's founding, we have not had a single generation to live without seeing a war.

A kid born in 1994 is old enough to join the military today.. That means he would have been 7 when this war started, and probably has no memory of a time we were not actively fighting overseas.

/sobering

is 1990 close enough? i can tell you I wasn't paying attention at the time.

thing is, this guy might not really be wrong. the subject matter is so subjective here that almost any opinion is valid. If the DoD takes cuts across the board, we take a hit to our military's size and general strength. but whether or not that actually means anything, IMO, depends more upon where the military puts the cash it's still getting. the battle of the bulge was won because the Germans wouldn't just throw everything they had, they were being too surprised by the effectiveness of the defenders. but if they had, the defense would have crumbled easily: the thing is, even though they didn't know it, the defense kept moving to deflect wherever then next attack was coming from. all we gotta do to keep effectiveness while reducing size is the same thing on a global scale: don't go for blanketing the world. get good intel, and be where we need to be, and not be where we don't need to be.

Ayn Rand's Cervix: Does going into my neighbor's house where he shoots at me mean he invaded my house and attacked my family?

Depends, you in Florida?

/apparently, "stand your ground means" "I can go into my neighbor's house with a gun and a crowbar. My neighbor also has a gun. My neighbor spots me using the crowbar to pry open his wife's jewelry box and takes a potshot at me, but misses. I am allowed to shoot him dead."

Mugato: They're not going to start anything with us. Not overtly anyway.

I have a feeling we'll probably never see another massive country-on-country shooting war again. Wars will probably all by fought by proxy and by cyberattack. Think Stuxnet. Think about it. Why would a country try to physically cripple our infrastructure when it would be much easier to bring down the systems that comprise that infrastructure via attacks from within the system?

In the future, it's going to be all drones and computers. The weapons systems this guy in TFA is all worried about don't even need to be built. We need tiny insect-sized drones capable of delivering lethal injection to any person from anywhere in the world and we need hardened computer systems along with more intelligent law enforcement for stateside security. That's it. I mean, we'll still need a standing army, because some things can only be done by people. But I seriously doubt you'll ever see two bigass armies pounding the hell out of each other again. At least, not when two first-world countries have beef with each other.

Generals who always say this sound like a mob boss letting a business owner know what happens when he doesn't pay his protection racket money anymore.

Shostie: Oh, CHIEFS.

I kept reading that as "chefs."

Me too. That made a more interesting article in my head.

Have you tried subscribing to the "Don't be a dick" theory of international relations?

Cythraul: Okay, so since this country's founding, we have not had a single generation to live without seeing a war. Yet, if we cut the military's budget, we'll see MORE war? We've almost been in a state of perpetual war since 1776. What the hell else could happen? Multiple overlapping, simultaneous wars?.. oh, wait.

Hey now. There were like... 20 years. Total. During which we experienced peace.

Hater.

Looks like TPM's check cleared

Its like saying cutting the Fire departments budget could lead to more fires.

Yes, in the sense that it has fewer resources and can't respond as quickly. Small problems become big problems and tumble out of control until you've got a nation consuming disaster. All for the want of a nail.

No, if the the budget is being spent on pork projects like trillion dollar fighters. We need to spend on manpower, bases to stage materials, transport vehicles and the in field programs that do the most good.

Since congress benefits more from spending on top end hardware rather than on the soldiers and their tools, I suspect the budget cuts will be coming from the things that matter more than the things that don't.

If we wouldn't have gutted defense and intelligence in the 90's and invested in Afgansitan after the Soviets left.....there more than likely would not have been a war in Iraq or Afganistan.

But what the hell, lets cut the shiat out of it and see what happens. The democrats need more cash to blow through to help the people Obama has made poor.

Citrate1007: It's almost as if someone who has spent their entire career workign for the industrial military complex may have a bias opinion about governmental spending for the industrial military complex. We are no longer waging 2 wars.....why the FARK does the GOP think we need to keep our military budget (the one that bankrupted our country) at the levels required to fund 2 wars?
.

Because without that funding the Republican states would lose a lot of jobs. It's the only way most of them have stayed afloat and been able to claim their unemployment isn't worse.

Mugato: Citrate1007: The GOP has no problem with pork barrell spending as long as it goes for defense. They are not, and have never been the party of fiscal conservatism. They like to point at poor people on welfare and claim government moochers when in fact the corporate welfare is far more sickening and an exponentially greater waste of money than any other portion of our federal budget.

What he said.

Democrats are all about "tax and spend". Nevermind that taxes are lower than they have been in years and any attempt to reduce military spending is shot down by Republicans.

All politicians regardless of party believe in Keynesian economics when it comes to arguing against cutting defense spending for their district. For Republicans, they'll argue passionately that it's virtually impossible for government to create jobs.... yet cutting defense spending to their district will result in lost jobs and a faltering local economy.

Building an airport? That's Big Government Socialism spending us into oblivion.
Building an airbase? That's small government conservatism we can't get enough of.

It amounts to about a 10 percent reduction. Man, I'm scared, I'd better get to work on my bunker.

But the rich don't want to pay taxes.

And the oil companies need those credits.

The shareholders will make money during war. What do they care if Little Johny Lower Class goes off and dies in a war. They'd be glad if he did. It won't be their sons and daughters in the slaughter.

MFL: If we wouldn't have gutted defense and intelligence in the 90's and invested in Afgansitan after the Soviets left.....there more than likely would not have been a war in Iraq or Afganistan.

But what the hell, lets cut the shiat out of it and see what happens. The democrats need more cash to blow through to help the people Obama has made poor.


How about this:

If there wasn't billions each year going to the military they never would have been able to put Saddam in power in the first place, or supply him with conventional and WMDs to make him such a threat, would never have gone into Afghanistan, or any other Middle Eastern country without a very good reason, thus making any group like Al Quaeda have no reason to hate America.

But then how would all you wastes of oxygen be able to do anything without government handouts?

Ayn Rand's Cervix: Philip J. Fry: GAT_00: Really? Answer me this then: what was the last time a nation-state attacked us first?

I'll give you a hint: it hasn't happened in 70 years.

The U.S.S. Liberty attack was 70 years ago?

Does going into my neighbor's house where he shoots at me mean he invaded my house and attacked my family?

You doing ok? Let me know if I can help...

Tigger: Mugato: MFL: If we wouldn't have gutted defense and intelligence in the 90's and invested in Afgansitan after the Soviets left.....there more than likely would not have been a war in Iraq or Afganistan

That's a joke, right?

No.

attention seeking mechanism/cry for help


No. A defense contractor justifying his and his buddies salaries.

Philip J. Fry: GAT_00: Really? Answer me this then: what was the last time a nation-state attacked us first?

I'll give you a hint: it hasn't happened in 70 years.

The U.S.S. Liberty attack was 70 years ago?


America was spying on Israel and selling the intel to the Arabs. They got what they deserved.

Ayn Rand's Cervix: Philip J. Fry: GAT_00: Really? Answer me this then: what was the last time a nation-state attacked us first?

I'll give you a hint: it hasn't happened in 70 years.

The U.S.S. Liberty attack was 70 years ago?

Does going into my neighbor's house where he shoots at me mean he invaded my house and attacked my family?

Ah, yes.

1. Too bad the Liberty was in international waters

2. Too bad the initial attacking Israeli aircraft were unmarked.

You know who else used the economy as an excuse to go to war?

TheShavingofOccam123: Ah, yes.

1. Too bad the Liberty was in international waters

2. Too bad the initial attacking Israeli aircraft were unmarked.


Who cares? You spy on an "ally" and sell the info to its enemies, prepare to eat missiles.

New Hire Wanted: Military General who can run worlds most expensive military with a slightly smaller budget -- but still having the worlds most expensive military.

intelligent comment below: TheShavingofOccam123: Ah, yes.

1. Too bad the Liberty was in international waters

2. Too bad the initial attacking Israeli aircraft were unmarked.


Who cares? You spy on an "ally" and sell the info to its enemies, prepare to eat missiles.



Maybe this guy can tell us where the good targets in Israel are. A couple of MIRVs should settle the score.

TheShavingofOccam123: intelligent comment below: TheShavingofOccam123: Ah, yes.

1. Too bad the Liberty was in international waters

2. Too bad the initial attacking Israeli aircraft were unmarked.


Who cares? You spy on an "ally" and sell the info to its enemies, prepare to eat missiles.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x283]

Maybe this guy can tell us where the good targets in Israel are. A couple of MIRVs should settle the score.


Was he selling his intel to an enemy of America like the US was with the Liberty incident?

If we don't keep spending as much as every other country combined, foreigners will invade!!

Hard to take the organization seriously when their accounting isn't known to be top notch.

Pentagon Loses 2.3 Trillion Dollars

vernonFL: [dailybail.com image 462x498]

We spend more than all our enemies (and friends) combined. How can anyone justify this?

Well, duh. It's in case our friends all suddenly become our enemies and our enemies remain our enemies. Then we can fight the whole world at the same time. Because that's definitely what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

intelligent comment below: TheShavingofOccam123: intelligent comment below: TheShavingofOccam123: Ah, yes.

1. Too bad the Liberty was in international waters

2. Too bad the initial attacking Israeli aircraft were unmarked.


Who cares? You spy on an "ally" and sell the info to its enemies, prepare to eat missiles.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x283]

Maybe this guy can tell us where the good targets in Israel are. A couple of MIRVs should settle the score.


Was he selling his intel to an enemy of America like the US was with the Liberty incident?

Well, he stole intel from the US and sold it to a nation that attacked one of our ships--killing 34 and wounding 170--in an attempt to draw us into a war with Egypt. Hence, the unmarked attack aircraft.

TheShavingofOccam123: Well, he stole intel from the US and sold it to a nation that attacked one of our ships--killing 34 and wounding 170--in an attempt to draw us into a war with Egypt. Hence, the unmarked attack aircraft.


Can you revise history even more?

The Liberty was an NSA ship, the US government was selling the movements of the IDF to countries that were going to war with Israel. What do you think Israel should have done? Sent flowers?

If you think the spy incidents are similar then it just shows your pro US military bias. You're a whore for Saudi Arabia and you can't admit it.

Israel spying on America for its own benefit is a worse offense than if they were to sell those secrets to, say, the USSR?

beta_plus: What's hilarious about fark libs' fantasies of a second civil war is that they really think that they would be the aggressors and win. They'd be wiped out.

Even more hilarious is your apparent belief that once this hypothetical civil war against the "libs" ends, you will somehow be in a position to gloat. You're like Jaws at the end of Moonraker... you totally don't fit into this society that you're desperately fighting for, but you're too goddamn dumb to see it.

mark12A: No, we haven't been attacked by another "nation-state" in 70 years. Kinda makes the investment in the military worth it, huh?

/spent money on high quality, expensive house
//house held up great
///history shows over and over that strength causes peace, weakness causes war


I have a rock here that prevents lion attacks. In the 15 years I have owned the rock, no lion has attacked me. Do you wish to buy one for the discounted price of $15,000?

More like

/spend money on 1000 room house
//have a family of 5
//weakness causes war? Japan was weaker than America but they still attacked. AQ was weaker than America and still attacked. Go away you DoD shill.

intelligent comment below: TheShavingofOccam123: Well, he stole intel from the US and sold it to a nation that attacked one of our ships--killing 34 and wounding 170--in an attempt to draw us into a war with Egypt. Hence, the unmarked attack aircraft.


Can you revise history even more?

The Liberty was an NSA ship, the US government was selling the movements of the IDF to countries that were going to war with Israel. What do you think Israel should have done? Sent flowers?

If you think the spy incidents are similar then it just shows your pro US military bias. You're a whore for Saudi Arabia and you can't admit it.

Israel spying on America for its own benefit is a worse offense than if they were to sell those secrets to, say, the USSR?

The USS Liberty was a US Navy Technical Research Ship, not an NSA ship.

qorkfiend: The USS Liberty was a US Navy Technical Research Ship, not an NSA ship.


False

Cut the budget in our moment of triumph? I think you seriously underestimate our enemies chances.

intelligent comment below: qorkfiend: The USS Liberty was a US Navy Technical Research Ship, not an NSA ship.


False


And if that was true, why does the flag that flew on the Liberty now belong in the National Cryptologic Museum in Fort Meade, Maryland?

intelligent comment below: qorkfiend: The USS Liberty was a US Navy Technical Research Ship, not an NSA ship.


False

Bzzt! Wrong.

"In February 1963, the Navy acquired Simmons Victory and converted her to a "Miscellaneous Auxiliary" ship at Willamette Iron and Steel of Portland. On 8 June she was renamed the Liberty and given hull classification symbol AG-168. On 1 April 1964, she was reclassified a Technical Research Ship (AGTR-5). She was commissioned at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington, in December."

Collecting data for the NSA does not make something an "NSA ship".