If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Military chiefs: Cutting our budget will lead to more wars   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 135
    More: Unlikely, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, debt limit, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Budget Control Act, segregationists, wars  
•       •       •

1379 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Jun 2012 at 3:50 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



135 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-14 01:22:40 PM  
I mean, if we're only outspending the rest of the world by a small margin of 7 to 1, then we could be toppled at any second! that gap needs to be at LEAST 500-1.
 
2012-06-14 01:24:41 PM  
Bullshiat.
 
2012-06-14 01:29:47 PM  
Adapt and overcome.
 
2012-06-14 01:33:38 PM  
...and spending more will also lead to more wars.
 
2012-06-14 01:37:02 PM  
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.
 
2012-06-14 01:42:38 PM  
That's some weapons-grade bullshiat right there
 
2012-06-14 01:44:41 PM  
Oh, CHIEFS.

I kept reading that as "chefs."
 
2012-06-14 01:50:25 PM  
Wow, did none of you read between the lines? Congress is currently on a path to automatic cuts in every sector. Republicans are holding out for a deal on massive domestic cuts. The Pentagon knows that's both wrong, and politically damaging. So by going in front of Congress and saying "If you don't make a deal the losses the Pentagon will suffer will make us weaker. Do you want to make America weaker?"
 
2012-06-14 01:51:43 PM  

WTF Indeed: Wow, did none of you read between the lines? Congress is currently on a path to automatic cuts in every sector. Republicans are holding out for a deal on massive domestic cuts. The Pentagon knows that's both wrong, and politically damaging. So by going in front of Congress and saying "If you don't make a deal the losses the Pentagon will suffer will make us weaker. Do you want to make America weaker?"


Yay! Empire!
 
2012-06-14 01:53:17 PM  
Hey, pussies! Suck it up! You go to war with the army you have. Not the army you want or wish you had.
 
2012-06-14 01:54:41 PM  

Vodka Zombie: Hey, pussies! Suck it up! You go to war with the army you have. Not the army you want or wish you had.


Ohh, a Bush Administration quote.. me likey.
 
2012-06-14 01:56:21 PM  

Cythraul: Yay! Empire!


Yay understanding the political dynamics of Congress, and how best to meet both societies needs and the military's needs.

Here, just read Mr. Y.
 
2012-06-14 01:58:30 PM  

WTF Indeed: Cythraul: Yay! Empire!

Yay understanding the political dynamics of Congress, and how best to meet both societies needs and the military's needs.

Here, just read Mr. Y.


The U.S. military is about keeping foreign investments for rich people secure. Rarely have I seen our military go to war to protect my freedoms. This asshole is pulling some protection racket bullshiat. "Fund us, or it could mean the lives of more of your fighting-age sons."
 
2012-06-14 01:59:44 PM  

Cythraul: The U.S. military is about keeping foreign investments for rich people secure. Rarely have I seen our military go to war to protect my freedoms. This asshole is pulling some protection racket bullshiat. "Fund us, or it could mean the lives of more of your fighting-age sons."


I know someone who didn't read the link.
 
2012-06-14 02:27:59 PM  
That seems unlikely. But at some point, as people get more and more desperate and the GOP gets more and more cartoonishly evil, there will be a civil war.

Rome only lasted so long.
 
2012-06-14 02:35:58 PM  

WTF Indeed: Wow, did none of you read between the lines?


I sure did. I saw a General stand before congress and say "Nice peace you got here. Shame if something should happen to it."
 
2012-06-14 02:43:11 PM  

vartian: I sure did. I saw a General stand before congress and say "Nice peace you got here. Shame if something should happen to it."


Read the link I posted, ya moron.
 
2012-06-14 02:54:44 PM  

what_now: That seems unlikely. But at some point, as people get more and more desperate and the GOP gets more and more cartoonishly evil, there will be a civil war.

Rome only lasted so long.


I don't know. Part of me thinks that yeah, we're headed for another civil war. But, there's also a part of me that thinks that Americans will soon break out the guillotines and go after our nation's "landed nobility" of over-paid CEOs and the obscenely wealthy whatnots.
 
2012-06-14 02:59:04 PM  

Vodka Zombie: I don't know. Part of me thinks that yeah, we're headed for another civil war. But, there's also a part of me that thinks that Americans will soon break out the guillotines and go after our nation's "landed nobility" of over-paid CEOs and the obscenely wealthy whatnots.


That's how a civil war starts. It's not like the pitchfork and torch brigade go home and watch telly after putting Jamie Dimon's head on a spike.
 
2012-06-14 03:31:36 PM  

what_now: Vodka Zombie: I don't know. Part of me thinks that yeah, we're headed for another civil war. But, there's also a part of me that thinks that Americans will soon break out the guillotines and go after our nation's "landed nobility" of over-paid CEOs and the obscenely wealthy whatnots.

That's how a civil war starts. It's not like the pitchfork and torch brigade go home and watch telly after putting Jamie Dimon's head on a spike.


True. Guess I didn't think it through.

Promise you'll call me when it starts though. I'd hate to miss a good civil war.
 
2012-06-14 03:35:46 PM  

Vodka Zombie: Promise you'll call me when it starts though. I'd hate to miss a good civil war.


Ok, but you have to bring your own pitchfork.
 
2012-06-14 03:41:48 PM  

what_now: Vodka Zombie: Promise you'll call me when it starts though. I'd hate to miss a good civil war.

Ok, but you have to bring your own pitchfork.


I plan to be the next generation of moneyed elitists by renting out pitchforks.
 
2012-06-14 03:44:25 PM  
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.
 
2012-06-14 03:52:39 PM  
And owning less forks will make me lose weight.
 
2012-06-14 03:52:56 PM  
Is anyone else ever creeped out by the cold detachment with which they speak about war?
 
2012-06-14 03:53:53 PM  

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.


I have it on very good authority that Saddam Hussein personally carpet-bombed New York City in 2001.
 
2012-06-14 03:55:13 PM  

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?
 
2012-06-14 03:56:06 PM  
Someone should get Rumsfeld to tell them that you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
 
2012-06-14 03:57:03 PM  

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
 
2012-06-14 03:58:03 PM  

LasersHurt: Is anyone else ever creeped out by the cold detachment with which they speak about war?


It's not cold. It's business. It's understanding that war brings death and their profession is war. Generals are normally the biggest peace hawks you'll ever meet.
 
2012-06-14 03:58:09 PM  
Damn, I see now that Vodka Zombie beat me to it.
 
2012-06-14 03:59:09 PM  
Wars with who? What wars since WWII have we been in that weren't started by us and also completely unnecessary? The Cold War, maybe Desert Storm I. But the former has been over for 22 years and the latter lasted like three days.
 
2012-06-14 04:00:43 PM  

WTF Indeed: LasersHurt: Is anyone else ever creeped out by the cold detachment with which they speak about war?

It's not cold. It's business. It's understanding that war brings death and their profession is war. Generals are normally the biggest peace hawks you'll ever meet.


Funny you would say it that way, I almost said "they talk about it the way they'd talk about 3rd quarter earnings reports."
 
2012-06-14 04:01:04 PM  
This message brought to you by Northrop Grumman.
 
2012-06-14 04:02:51 PM  

Vodka Zombie: what_now: That seems unlikely. But at some point, as people get more and more desperate and the GOP gets more and more cartoonishly evil, there will be a civil war.

Rome only lasted so long.

I don't know. Part of me thinks that yeah, we're headed for another civil war. But, there's also a part of me that thinks that Americans will soon break out the guillotines and go after our nation's "landed nobility" of over-paid CEOs and the obscenely wealthy whatnots.


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.

/hint - look from where the vast majority of the soldiers who actually do the fighting come and from which cities our weapon systems actually get made
 
2012-06-14 04:04:46 PM  

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


Someone born in 1990 would have lived through the 1st gulf war, operations in Somalia, NATO operations in Yugoslavia twice, the repeated bombing of Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the 2nd war on Iraq, and a sundry of other operations in Somalia, Yemen, and Libya.

The longest period I've lived through without the US military being engaged in "action" was when I was a wee tike at the end of Vietnam and, I guess, Grenada. So, like 8 years.
 
2012-06-14 04:05:14 PM  

beta_plus: /hint - look from where the vast majority of the soldiers who actually do the fighting come and from which cities our weapon systems actually get made


A bunch of welfare queens if you ask me.

/Lives near a big Boeing plant in St. Louis
//Of course the district it's in is represented by a Tea Partier who is against any form of government spending except for spending that benefits his district
 
2012-06-14 04:06:24 PM  

WTF Indeed: "If you don't make a deal the losses the Pentagon will suffer will make us weaker. Do you want to make America weaker?"



Absolutely, yes!!!

If that means you have a military unable to fight 2 unjust wars of occupation for over a decade, count us all in please!!
 
2012-06-14 04:08:10 PM  
I love watching Republicans wriggle on the hook they set themselves.
 
2012-06-14 04:08:54 PM  

WTF Indeed: vartian: I sure did. I saw a General stand before congress and say "Nice peace you got here. Shame if something should happen to it."

Read the link I posted, ya moron.



A quick cliff notes is this:

"What would Billy Bob actually do with his life if he couldn't join the military?"

"What would Boeing do if it couldn't get half its profits from the defense industry?"

"What would corporations do if America wasn't enforcing their rule over 3rd world nations?"
 
2012-06-14 04:10:39 PM  

WTF Indeed: Generals are normally the biggest peace hawks you'll ever meet.



Riiight. Like all those peace hawks demanding JFK invade Cuba and Vietnam.

GTFO you shill.
 
2012-06-14 04:11:33 PM  
dailybail.com

We spend more than all our enemies (and friends) combined. How can anyone justify this?
 
2012-06-14 04:11:57 PM  
Tax and spend democrats...except when they want to cut the military budget. Because we really need more nukes, space based weapons and bullshiat bases in Germany and Japan.
 
2012-06-14 04:13:17 PM  
It's not a crazy idea. Our conventional capability acts as a deterrent. If we stop funding it, eventually it will no longer be a deterrent.

But on the other hand, who are we deterring? China is building up it's military, but it still won't have the ability to project enough force to actually harm us for decades and decades (and their bubble is going to burst well before then). Terrorists certainly aren't deterred by our conventional might.

It's also not appropriate to lump in the entire military together. Our economy depends on global trade enabled by sea transportation and must be protected. Yes, this benefits the rich but it benefits the middle class too. We should not be cutting the Navy's budget, especially in the face of the Chinese naval buildup and European naval cuts. In fact, we should increase the Navy's budget. But the Air Force is bloated and the Army is too big for its purpose as long as we're not nation-building various shiatholes around the world. We can afford to cut the Marine Corps down to its Congressionally-mandated strength* but it falls under the Navy budget in any event.

*- By federal law, the Marine Corps must be funded to at least four divisions and four airwings (three of each active, one of each reserve). It is the only branch whose structure is codified in a Congressional mandate.

TL;DR: Both sides have a point. Fund the Navy, cut the Army and Air Force
 
2012-06-14 04:14:27 PM  

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?
 
2012-06-14 04:16:00 PM  
Still having the #1 military but without the ability to wage a 47-front war is definitely a sign of weakness.
 
2012-06-14 04:16:26 PM  

Freakman: But on the other hand, who are we deterring? China is building up it's military, but it still won't have the ability to project enough force to actually harm us for decades and decades (and their bubble is going to burst well before then)


China's our biggest trading partner (thanks in no small part by Romney). They're not going to start anything with us. Not overtly anyway.
 
2012-06-14 04:17:14 PM  
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.
 
2012-06-14 04:17:30 PM  
Against whom? And when? 30-40 years from now. What he means is that if the budget is cut the Pentagon will seek to start a war in order to get the budget increased. Brilliant plan.
 
2012-06-14 04:17:56 PM  
Fark these bloodthirsty pricks.
 
Displayed 50 of 135 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report