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.

(Fox News)   Because of budget cuts, the United States only has two combat-ready brigades left to defend the country. Stop looking at us like that, Canada   (foxnews.com) divider line 188
    More: Scary, Odierno, United States, John McHugh, brigades  
•       •       •

7074 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Oct 2013 at 1:18 AM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-22 11:50:37 PM
Boo farking hoo
 
2013-10-22 11:57:48 PM
And now the Rooskies are going to march right through Sarah Palin's front yard

/and you'll be sorry she wasn't at her kitchen window to warn us all
//DOOM!
///DOOM!, I say...
 
2013-10-23 12:04:07 AM
Didn't C.J. Craig already have this argument?

I hate to disagree, but it means unfit for service based on the Pentagon's "two war" doctrine. It's based on how fast these divisions would be able to extract themselves from their peacekeeping mission, retrain on home bases, and ship off to a second of two, full-scale Gulf-War-sized conflicts. There are also some both inside and outside the Pentagon who question whether the C4 ratings might not be a political maneuver on the part of the DOD to help Republican allies in Congress secure more defense money.

I mean, I have no idea. I'm just asking.
 
2013-10-23 12:04:29 AM
Uh huh. Well FYI, those two brigades have enough Pu in their shorts to kill everyone on earth. We'll be fine.
 
2013-10-23 12:10:42 AM
Like the US doesn't have a plan to invade Canada.  You know they didn't declassify one plan without making another...
Pssst... Canadians.  How's it goin' eh?  Where ya to?  So listen, I think we have a good chance here to get back some territory here...
 
2013-10-23 12:11:56 AM

HawgWild: Didn't C.J. Craig Cregg already have this argument?

I hate to disagree, but it means unfit for service based on the Pentagon's "two war" doctrine. It's based on how fast these divisions would be able to extract themselves from their peacekeeping mission, retrain on home bases, and ship off to a second of two, full-scale Gulf-War-sized conflicts. There are also some both inside and outside the Pentagon who question whether the C4 ratings might not be a political maneuver on the part of the DOD to help Republican allies in Congress secure more defense money.

I mean, I have no idea. I'm just asking.


The more I watch that show, the more I see the eerie similarities in how events have played out over time...
 
2013-10-23 12:28:04 AM
He questioned claims that the Army is merely scaling back to spending levels from a decade ago, arguing that the costs of caring for wounded soldiers and funding family programs is greater than it was back then.

oh snap
 
2013-10-23 12:33:16 AM

log_jammin: He questioned claims that the Army is merely scaling back to spending levels from a decade ago, arguing that the costs of caring for wounded soldiers and funding family programs is greater than it was back then.

oh snap


Those are things we shouldn't skimp on.  The VA needs a vast budget increase.  There shouldn't be any vets that are left wanting for medical or psychiatric treatment.

That being said, it's not a bad idea to cut down on ground troops.  Long-term ground wars and occupations need to be something we avoid like the plague.  We don't get anything positive out of them, they cost a ton of money, and they leave us with a lot of wounded and/or troubled soldiers when they come home.

We have the most advanced ships, subs, missiles, planes, drones, and bombs in the world, in most cases several generations ahead of anything we'd possibly face.  Warfare is evolving, and it doesn't need to include thousands of boots on the ground anymore.
 
2013-10-23 12:48:47 AM
We still don't want Detroit.
 
2013-10-23 12:53:21 AM
I'm calling bullshiat.  The Marine Corps can keep two at least two MAGTFs (comparable size to the Army's "brigade") consisting of air, ground and logistic elements ready to have boots on ground in 96 hours or less anywhere in the world, at all times.  We also have three divisions and three air wings, at least half of each one would be ready to deploy in under a week... always.

If the Army - with three times as many Active Duty personnel and 12 times the budget only has 25% as many combat ready assets at any given time as the Marine Corps, then they are in serious need of unfarking.

This is not due to the sequester.  This is either a lie, or sheer incompetence.
 
2013-10-23 12:53:45 AM
img2.timeinc.net

img.fark.net
 
2013-10-23 12:54:42 AM

Rhino_man: I'm calling bullshiat.  The Marine Corps can keep two at least two MAGTFs (comparable size to the Army's "brigade") consisting of air, ground and logistic elements ready to have boots on ground in 96 hours or less anywhere in the world, at all times.  We also have three divisions and three air wings, at least half of each one would be ready to deploy in under a week... always.

If the Army - with three times as many Active Duty personnel and 12 times the budget only has 25% as many combat ready assets at any given time as the Marine Corps, then they are in serious need of unfarking.

This is not due to the sequester.  This is either a lie, or sheer incompetence.


Source:

I was in one of those MAGTFs (22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit) for two years.  2009-2010.

Army size and budget info sourced from wikipedia.
 
2013-10-23 12:55:46 AM

Rhino_man: I'm calling bullshiat.  The Marine Corps can keep two at least two MAGTFs (comparable size to the Army's "brigade") consisting of air, ground and logistic elements ready to have boots on ground in 96 hours or less anywhere in the world, at all times.  We also have three divisions and three air wings, at least half of each one would be ready to deploy in under a week... always.

If the Army - with three times as many Active Duty personnel and 12 times the budget only has 25% as many combat ready assets at any given time as the Marine Corps, then they are in serious need of unfarking.

This is not due to the sequester.  This is either a lie, or sheer incompetence.


Shhhhh....

/don't spoil the surprise
 
2013-10-23 12:58:11 AM

Rhino_man: I'm calling bullshiat.  The Marine Corps can keep two at least two MAGTFs (comparable size to the Army's "brigade") consisting of air, ground and logistic elements ready to have boots on ground in 96 hours or less anywhere in the world, at all times.  We also have three divisions and three air wings, at least half of each one would be ready to deploy in under a week... always.

If the Army - with three times as many Active Duty personnel and 12 times the budget only has 25% as many combat ready assets at any given time as the Marine Corps, then they are in serious need of unfarking.

This is not due to the sequester.  This is either a lie, or sheer incompetence.


training budgets are always the first thing to get cut.
 
2013-10-23 12:58:33 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Rhino_man: I'm calling bullshiat.  The Marine Corps can keep two at least two MAGTFs (comparable size to the Army's "brigade") consisting of air, ground and logistic elements ready to have boots on ground in 96 hours or less anywhere in the world, at all times.  We also have three divisions and three air wings, at least half of each one would be ready to deploy in under a week... always.

If the Army - with three times as many Active Duty personnel and 12 times the budget only has 25% as many combat ready assets at any given time as the Marine Corps, then they are in serious need of unfarking.

This is not due to the sequester.  This is either a lie, or sheer incompetence.

Shhhhh....

/don't spoil the surprise


If the surprise is President Obama and General Amos standing on stage together at a press conference, telling Odierno exactly what I just said... then OK, I'll be quiet.  I really wouldn't want to ruin that.
 
2013-10-23 12:58:39 AM

TuteTibiImperes: We have the most advanced ships, subs, missiles, planes, drones, and bombs in the world, in most cases several generations ahead of anything we'd possibly face. Warfare is evolving, and it doesn't need to include thousands of boots on the ground anymore.


It does if warfare is meant to spearhead nation-building or remaking the Middle East, or as it's more commonly known as: the Neo-conservative Wet Dream.

Besides, simply pummelling your enemies from the sky might act as a deterrent, but it won't promote long term stability or ensure that regimes friendly to American InterestsTM will rise from the rubble-strewn power vacuum.
 
2013-10-23 01:00:35 AM
So they are trying to undo the sequester for the military but leave it in place for social services?

That seems a little lopsided.
 
2013-10-23 01:00:47 AM

log_jammin: Rhino_man: I'm calling bullshiat.  The Marine Corps can keep two at least two MAGTFs (comparable size to the Army's "brigade") consisting of air, ground and logistic elements ready to have boots on ground in 96 hours or less anywhere in the world, at all times.  We also have three divisions and three air wings, at least half of each one would be ready to deploy in under a week... always.

If the Army - with three times as many Active Duty personnel and 12 times the budget only has 25% as many combat ready assets at any given time as the Marine Corps, then they are in serious need of unfarking.

This is not due to the sequester.  This is either a lie, or sheer incompetence.

training budgets are always the first thing to get cut.


... which is a serious farking mistake.  The Army spends all their money on equipment and ends up with shiat troops.  The Marine Corps spends all its money on training and is far more combat effective, with lower casualty rates, in more difficult and dangerous situations despite having gear that's 30 years out of date and held together with spit, spite and prayers.
 
2013-10-23 01:06:54 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Those are things we shouldn't skimp on. The VA needs a vast budget increase. There shouldn't be any vets that are left wanting for medical or psychiatric treatment.


This should have been happening since the end of 2001, and ramped up further once we got involved in Iraq.  There should have been some kinds of arrangements for large increases in social workers, clinical psychologists, and psychiatrists, as well as other mental health workers, so that by the time the first big cohort of veterans came home with the completely predictable psychological traumas, the VA would have been ready to handle the increased caseload.
 
2013-10-23 01:08:32 AM
The DOD budget definitely needs reduced (and full transparency and auditing) but it seems like the decisions on what gets cut are being made my butthurt MIC fanboys with the intention of being as detrimental as possible.
 
2013-10-23 01:12:18 AM

miss diminutive: TuteTibiImperes: We have the most advanced ships, subs, missiles, planes, drones, and bombs in the world, in most cases several generations ahead of anything we'd possibly face. Warfare is evolving, and it doesn't need to include thousands of boots on the ground anymore.

It does if warfare is meant to spearhead nation-building or remaking the Middle East, or as it's more commonly known as: the Neo-conservative Wet Dream.

Besides, simply pummelling your enemies from the sky might act as a deterrent, but it won't promote long term stability or ensure that regimes friendly to American InterestsTM will rise from the rubble-strewn power vacuum.


I know I'm a bit biased - seeing as how I served in one - but I think the MEU should be the model for the entirety of US ground forces.  A self-contained unit that has infantry, artillery, air, logistics, medical repair and communications assets, and is capable of rapid deployment anywhere at any time.  If we're talking about nation building, what better way to do it than to have a unit like that set up a security perimeter around a village (or a cluster of villages), set up a health clinic for the locals, dig a few wells, improve some roads, and generally MAKE LIFE BETTER for the people of those villages?

Have a couple dozen of them hopping from area to area in theater, making life better for the locals as they fight, and pretty soon the locals will start to see that we're actually there to help them.  Win hearts and minds, damnit.
 
2013-10-23 01:13:05 AM

TuteTibiImperes: log_jammin: He questioned claims that the Army is merely scaling back to spending levels from a decade ago, arguing that the costs of caring for wounded soldiers and funding family programs is greater than it was back then.

oh snap

Those are things we shouldn't skimp on.  The VA needs a vast budget increase.  There shouldn't be any vets that are left wanting for medical or psychiatric treatment.

That being said, it's not a bad idea to cut down on ground troops.  Long-term ground wars and occupations need to be something we avoid like the plague.  We don't get anything positive out of them, they cost a ton of money, and they leave us with a lot of wounded and/or troubled soldiers when they come home.

We have the most advanced ships, subs, missiles, planes, drones, and bombs in the world, in most cases several generations ahead of anything we'd possibly face.  Warfare is evolving, and it doesn't need to include thousands of boots on the ground anymore.


Not really arguing with you, since I tend to agree, but ground-ready boots are a lot cheaper than huge new advanced weapons programs built to combat an enemy who dropped out of the fight 20 years ago, we are arms-racing ourselves and shaving pennies by pretending once again that technology will cut the need for the traditional soldier.
 
2013-10-23 01:18:03 AM
So what? All you gotta do is pull back from the West Coast, let the yellow army get strung out in the Rockies, retake Houston from the blue army to gain an extra Partisan card, concentrate east to smash the red army and stock the Mid-West with all of your orbital laser stations. As long as you hold 13 cities by Turn 8 you're guaranteed a victory.

Oh, and don't let your bombers get taken out. You can stack 5 with a regular attacking army.
 
2013-10-23 01:20:13 AM
So that's what? 6000-8000 troops that can be ready at a moments notice just from the Army and doesn't include the other three branches?  Are we stopping a land invasion?  No?  I think we're okay.
 
2013-10-23 01:20:23 AM

Darth Macho: So what? All you gotta do is pull back from the West Coast, let the yellow armyget strung out in the Rockies, retake Houston from the blue army to gain an extra Partisan card, concentrate east to smash the red army and stock the Mid-West with all of your orbital laser stations. As long as you hold 13 cities by Turn 8 you're guaranteed a victory.

Oh, and don't let your bombers get taken out. You can stack 5 with a regular attacking army.


img.pandawhale.com
 
2013-10-23 01:20:30 AM
Good thing we still have enough nukes to make it a moot point.
 
2013-10-23 01:22:05 AM

Gyrfalcon: Good thing we still have enough nukes to make it a moot point.


HELTER SKELTER!!11!!!!

/ahem
//I'm sorry... you were saying?
 
2013-10-23 01:22:59 AM
FTFA He said that after the sequester kicked in, "we had to stop training basically" in the last six months of the year.

In other words - the Army are unable or unwilling to prioritize the $244.9 billion it received from tax payers to pay for basic training.  Which is a very small portion of the overall budget.  Fire every general for gross incompetence.

/i'm serious
//sell a half dozen tanks on ebay and you can pay the basic training budget
 
2013-10-23 01:23:47 AM

gingerjet: FTFA He said that after the sequester kicked in, "we had to stop training basically" in the last six months of the year.

In other words - the Army are unable or unwilling to prioritize the $244.9 billion it received from tax payers to pay for basic training.  Which is a very small portion of the overall budget.   Fire every general for gross incompetence.

/i'm serious
//sell a half dozen tanks on ebay and you can pay the basic training budget


Ding ding ding.
 
2013-10-23 01:25:29 AM

Rhino_man: miss diminutive: TuteTibiImperes: We have the most advanced ships, subs, missiles, planes, drones, and bombs in the world, in most cases several generations ahead of anything we'd possibly face. Warfare is evolving, and it doesn't need to include thousands of boots on the ground anymore.

It does if warfare is meant to spearhead nation-building or remaking the Middle East, or as it's more commonly known as: the Neo-conservative Wet Dream.

Besides, simply pummelling your enemies from the sky might act as a deterrent, but it won't promote long term stability or ensure that regimes friendly to American InterestsTM will rise from the rubble-strewn power vacuum.

I know I'm a bit biased - seeing as how I served in one - but I think the MEU should be the model for the entirety of US ground forces.  A self-contained unit that has infantry, artillery, air, logistics, medical repair and communications assets, and is capable of rapid deployment anywhere at any time.  If we're talking about nation building, what better way to do it than to have a unit like that set up a security perimeter around a village (or a cluster of villages), set up a health clinic for the locals, dig a few wells, improve some roads, and generally MAKE LIFE BETTER for the people of those villages?

Have a couple dozen of them hopping from area to area in theater, making life better for the locals as they fight, and pretty soon the locals will start to see that we're actually there to help them.  Win hearts and minds, damnit.


Sounds good in theory. I think the fundamental question that needs to be addressed is, do the American people want their troops used for nation-building and winning hearts and minds in the first place? There are plenty of costs associated with that, and not just to the bottom line in a yearly budget. Signing up to be the world's policeman/peacekeeper/nation-builder for the foreseeable future  is a great way to make enemies.

I'm not saying I think I know what's best, either. It won't be my tax dollars spent, it won't be my family going to serve in these military campaigns and it won't be my cities or citizens in danger of reprisals from America's enemies. But I don't know if that frank discussion about what America's geopolitical goals should be have taken place, beyond "We should be the only superpower on the block".
 
2013-10-23 01:25:58 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Gyrfalcon: Good thing we still have enough nukes to make it a moot point.

HELTER SKELTER!!11!!!!

/ahem
//I'm sorry... you were saying?


Charlie? How'd you get out of Folsom?
 
2013-10-23 01:26:27 AM

Gyrfalcon: Good thing we still have enough nukes to make it a moot point.


But we have no battleships or dreadnoughts. How can these people say our country is safe without the ability to bring full broadsides to bear against the Spanish threat?

CHECK AND MATE, LIBTARDS.
 
2013-10-23 01:27:30 AM
Wolverines!!

/Dittybopper
//that's the mayor's car. They got Daryl's dad's car!
///no shiat, Sherlock, and they gave it a sweet camo paint job
////obscure?
 
2013-10-23 01:28:50 AM

Darth Macho: So what? All you gotta do is pull back from the West Coast, let the yellow army get strung out in the Rockies, retake Houston from the blue army to gain an extra Partisan card, concentrate east to smash the red army and stock the Mid-West with all of your orbital laser stations. As long as you hold 13 cities by Turn 8 you're guaranteed a victory.

Oh, and don't let your bombers get taken out. You can stack 5 with a regular attacking army.


you are one heck of geek
/fortress America is no Axis and Allies
//FA kinda sucked
 
2013-10-23 01:33:59 AM

Weatherkiss: Gyrfalcon: Good thing we still have enough nukes to make it a moot point.

But we have no battleships or dreadnoughts. How can these people say our country is safe without the ability to bring full broadsides to bear against the Spanish threat?

CHECK AND MATE, LIBTARDS.


Who needs battleships when we can throw a few veteran phalanxes on some mountains and defend our territory until the Manhattan project comes along?
 
2013-10-23 01:35:31 AM

miss diminutive: Rhino_man: miss diminutive: TuteTibiImperes: We have the most advanced ships, subs, missiles, planes, drones, and bombs in the world, in most cases several generations ahead of anything we'd possibly face. Warfare is evolving, and it doesn't need to include thousands of boots on the ground anymore.

It does if warfare is meant to spearhead nation-building or remaking the Middle East, or as it's more commonly known as: the Neo-conservative Wet Dream.

Besides, simply pummelling your enemies from the sky might act as a deterrent, but it won't promote long term stability or ensure that regimes friendly to American InterestsTM will rise from the rubble-strewn power vacuum.

I know I'm a bit biased - seeing as how I served in one - but I think the MEU should be the model for the entirety of US ground forces.  A self-contained unit that has infantry, artillery, air, logistics, medical repair and communications assets, and is capable of rapid deployment anywhere at any time.  If we're talking about nation building, what better way to do it than to have a unit like that set up a security perimeter around a village (or a cluster of villages), set up a health clinic for the locals, dig a few wells, improve some roads, and generally MAKE LIFE BETTER for the people of those villages?

Have a couple dozen of them hopping from area to area in theater, making life better for the locals as they fight, and pretty soon the locals will start to see that we're actually there to help them.  Win hearts and minds, damnit.

Sounds good in theory. I think the fundamental question that needs to be addressed is, do the American people want their troops used for nation-building and winning hearts and minds in the first place? There are plenty of costs associated with that, and not just to the bottom line in a yearly budget. Signing up to be the world's policeman/peacekeeper/nation-builder for the foreseeable future  is a great way to make enemies.

I'm not saying I think I know what's best, either. It won't be my tax dollars spent, it won't be my family going to serve in these military campaigns and it won't be my cities or citizens in danger of reprisals from America's enemies. But I don't know if that frank discussion about what America's geopolitical goals should be have taken place, beyond "We should be the only superpower on the block".


Sadly, I think you're right... that discussion HASN'T taken place. We're too mired in 30 second soundbites and "gotchas" to have a substantive debate on the role of US forces throughout the world.
 
2013-10-23 01:36:40 AM

miss diminutive: Weatherkiss: Gyrfalcon: Good thing we still have enough nukes to make it a moot point.

But we have no battleships or dreadnoughts. How can these people say our country is safe without the ability to bring full broadsides to bear against the Spanish threat?

CHECK AND MATE, LIBTARDS.

Who needs battleships when we can throw a few veteran phalanxes on some mountains and defend our territory until the Manhattan project comes along?


Up through Civ 2 maybe.
 
2013-10-23 01:37:03 AM

R. Paulson: Darth Macho: So what? All you gotta do is pull back from the West Coast, let the yellow army get strung out in the Rockies, retake Houston from the blue army to gain an extra Partisan card, concentrate east to smash the red army and stock the Mid-West with all of your orbital laser stations. As long as you hold 13 cities by Turn 8 you're guaranteed a victory.

Oh, and don't let your bombers get taken out. You can stack 5 with a regular attacking army.

you are one heck of geek
/fortress America is no Axis and Allies
//FA kinda sucked


Axis and Allies is what happens when Monopoly and Risk had a baby and took turns peeing on it. Fortress America is the boardgame equivalent of Conan the Barbarian's Wheel of Pain. It builds character.
 
2013-10-23 01:40:02 AM
Wait...so with a budget exceeding 150 billion dollars they only have 2 combat ready brigades out of what? 33?

Yeah either MASSIVE incompetence, or they lying.

Maybe we should fund the marines more, they seem to be making better use of their money.
 
2013-10-23 01:40:24 AM
Maybe if our combat troops were dedicated to protecting our country and not to playing mommy in other countries we wouldn't have that problem. Or, you know, if we took some of the people from the 200-some-odd bases we have around the world and kept them at home. That might help, too.
 
2013-10-23 01:40:58 AM

Treygreen13: miss diminutive: Weatherkiss: Gyrfalcon: Good thing we still have enough nukes to make it a moot point.

But we have no battleships or dreadnoughts. How can these people say our country is safe without the ability to bring full broadsides to bear against the Spanish threat?

CHECK AND MATE, LIBTARDS.

Who needs battleships when we can throw a few veteran phalanxes on some mountains and defend our territory until the Manhattan project comes along?

Up through Civ 2 maybe.


I've only played up to Civ 4. Once my riflemen and machine gunners came along I basically could just sit behind them and build up my Stack of Doom.
 
2013-10-23 01:41:10 AM
This is unacceptable, what with all those large-scale, conventional infantry-based wars we may be fighting in the near future.
 
2013-10-23 01:41:12 AM

Darth Macho: R. Paulson: Darth Macho: So what? All you gotta do is pull back from the West Coast, let the yellow army get strung out in the Rockies, retake Houston from the blue army to gain an extra Partisan card, concentrate east to smash the red army and stock the Mid-West with all of your orbital laser stations. As long as you hold 13 cities by Turn 8 you're guaranteed a victory.

Oh, and don't let your bombers get taken out. You can stack 5 with a regular attacking army.

you are one heck of geek
/fortress America is no Axis and Allies
//FA kinda sucked

Axis and Allies is what happens when Monopoly and Risk had a baby and took turns peeing on it. Fortress America is the boardgame equivalent of Conan the Barbarian's Wheel of Pain. It builds character.


meh, if your into pain then O.K.
AA requires some smarts.
I see your point.
 
2013-10-23 01:41:48 AM
I'm going to have to agree with my fellow Marines here, the army needs to learn to do more with less.    Cut some of the bells and whistles.  If you need instruction how I'm sure you could ask a Marine to explain how.
 
2013-10-23 01:41:51 AM
OSX 10.9

There's an app for that.
 
2013-10-23 01:43:24 AM
I don't trust Canadia.
 
2013-10-23 01:43:58 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: This is unacceptable, what with all those large-scale, conventional infantry-based wars we may be fighting in the near future.


No no no, all generals learn how to fight the next war during the last war. They're still figuring out how to fight an urban insurgency on the playing fields of Eaton.
 
2013-10-23 01:44:52 AM

Bucky Katt: I don't trust Canadia.


We're shifty as f*ck.
 
2013-10-23 01:46:24 AM
OMFG, we'd better spend a little money on our military, stat!
 
2013-10-23 01:48:20 AM

Gerrok: I'm going to have to agree with my fellow Marines here, the army needs to learn to do more with less.    Cut some of the bells and whistles.  If you need instruction how I'm sure you could ask a Marine to explain how.


Use weapons, combat vehicles, aircraft, and landing craft developed by other branches of the military?

No offense intended.
 
Displayed 50 of 188 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report