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.

(New York Daily News)   Pentagon concludes that shrinking the Army to its smallest size since before World War II won't be a problem. Apparently they really weren't kidding with that slogan "An Army of One"   (nydailynews.com) divider line 163
    More: Followup, World War II, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Armed Services Committee, Kirsten Gillibrand, close air support  
•       •       •

917 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Feb 2014 at 6:49 AM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-26 06:51:35 AM  
Cut the military in half.
Problem solved.
 
2014-02-26 06:53:17 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Cut the military in half.
Problem solved.


Army of half?
 
2014-02-26 06:54:30 AM  
breakingdefense.com
 
2014-02-26 06:54:52 AM  

JasonOfOrillia: HotIgneous Intruder: Cut the military in half.
Problem solved.

Army of half?


I joined the army and was told there be no fractions.
 
2014-02-26 06:56:52 AM  
You sound concerned, subby. I'm sure you'll be willing to increase your taxes to continue funding a DoD budget larger by an order of magnitude than any potential foe.

Right?
 
2014-02-26 06:58:21 AM  
If the size in dubya dubya to was enuff to whip the nazis and the japs then by gum its gud enuff fer these punks.

/Seriously, our military spending is bonkers
 
2014-02-26 06:59:48 AM  
The army is cut to the size of 1940. WW2 started in 1939, which caused USA to increase the size of its army probably figuring it risked being involved at some point.

I guess the pre-WW2 things sounds so good, that you just have to ignore when WW2 started, and when USA increased the size of its army (starting 1939).

Pre-WW2 would be 1938, not 1940.
 
2014-02-26 07:00:12 AM  

NeverDrunk23: JasonOfOrillia: HotIgneous Intruder: Cut the military in half.
Problem solved.

Army of half?

I joined the army and was told there be no fractions.


Or grammar
 
2014-02-26 07:01:44 AM  

timswar: If the size in dubya dubya to was enuff to whip the nazis and the japs then by gum its gud enuff fer these punks.

/Seriously, our military spending is bonkers


Yep. But try convincing the idiot rednecks down here of that. Cutting military spending to them equals shiatting on the service men and women.
 
2014-02-26 07:01:51 AM  
ARE YOU LISTENING THOSE WHO WANT TO DROWN THE GOVERNMENT IN A BATHTUB!?!
 
2014-02-26 07:03:29 AM  

Krymson Tyde: timswar: If the size in dubya dubya to was enuff to whip the nazis and the japs then by gum its gud enuff fer these punks.

/Seriously, our military spending is bonkers

Yep. But try convincing the idiot rednecks down here of that. Cutting military spending to them equals shiatting on the service men and women.


But I even translated it into Old Crabky Redneck speak. What more can I do?
 
2014-02-26 07:04:07 AM  
Good luck with that....

Since when does Congress listen to the armed forces? The army has been telling them for years to "STOP SENDING US GODDAMN TANKS!" and Congress keeps having em built.
 
2014-02-26 07:05:08 AM  
I'm okay with this
 
2014-02-26 07:05:44 AM  
The key here is to say, "shrinking the Army to its smallest size since before World War II" over and over again while accusing your Democratic opponent of crippling the US military, and talking ominously about how risky these cuts could be to American security.  Also, flash these quotes on TV advertisements while accusing your liberal opponent of being liberal.

Remember, loaded language, not reasonable discussion.
 
2014-02-26 07:05:50 AM  
I see absolutely no problem with this. The nature of warfare is changing, and so should the military. We don't exactly need a bunch of tank brigades anymore.
 
2014-02-26 07:05:57 AM  

kidgenius: Good luck with that....

Since when does Congress listen to the armed forces? The army has been telling them for years to "STOP SENDING US GODDAMN TANKS!" and Congress keeps having em built.


Military contractors won't pay themselves!
 
2014-02-26 07:09:13 AM  

Baron Harkonnen: The key here is to say, "shrinking the Army to its smallest size since before World War II" over and over again while accusing your Democratic opponent of crippling the US military, and talking ominously about how risky these cuts could be to American security.  Also, flash these quotes on TV advertisements while accusing your liberal opponent of being liberal.

Remember, loaded language, not reasonable discussion.


Dont' forget ole' Mittens persistence on our Navy being smaller than ever as being a Bad Thing™ and watching Barry smack him upside the head with some knowledge about the force projection capabilities of a carrier group.
 
2014-02-26 07:11:58 AM  

kidgenius: Baron Harkonnen: The key here is to say, "shrinking the Army to its smallest size since before World War II" over and over again while accusing your Democratic opponent of crippling the US military, and talking ominously about how risky these cuts could be to American security.  Also, flash these quotes on TV advertisements while accusing your liberal opponent of being liberal.

Remember, loaded language, not reasonable discussion.

Dont' forget ole' Mittens persistence on our Navy being smaller than ever as being a Bad Thing™ and watching Barry smack him upside the head with some knowledge about the force projection capabilities of a carrier group.


I will never forgive Obama on looting our bayonets stash.
 
2014-02-26 07:11:59 AM  

HaywoodJablonski: NeverDrunk23: JasonOfOrillia: HotIgneous Intruder: Cut the military in half.
Problem solved.

Army of half?

I joined the army and was told there be no fractions.

Or grammar


Exactly. There is no place I can go to escape these evil things.
 
2014-02-26 07:13:04 AM  
Horses are expendable.
 
2014-02-26 07:13:52 AM  

NeverDrunk23: HaywoodJablonski: NeverDrunk23: JasonOfOrillia: HotIgneous Intruder: Cut the military in half.
Problem solved.

Army of half?

I joined the army and was told there be no fractions.

Or grammar

Exactly. There no place I can go to escape these evil things.

 
2014-02-26 07:15:08 AM  
Less spending should mean less taxes. I bet I know a party that will have a problem with that.

chart.googleapis.com
 
2014-02-26 07:15:08 AM  

LordJiro: kidgenius: Good luck with that....

Since when does Congress listen to the armed forces? The army has been telling them for years to "STOP SENDING US GODDAMN TANKS!" and Congress keeps having em built.

Military contractors won't pay themselves!


Having worked for some for some of the military contractors, it's amazing how much money is spent. You get on one of those programs, you basically have a job for life. Look at JSF. It was first proposed in the mid 90's or something, and the contracts all awarded shortly thereafter? Here we are 15 years later and we still don't have any of these things in production. F-22 started in the early 90's and finally has been killed. Comanche was in perpetual development for 20+ years.

If we could turn those same engineers onto other things like self-driving cars, various types of factory automation, etc., we'd have the future here in no time.
 
2014-02-26 07:15:53 AM  
Ah yes, the "Army of One" joke that never gets old anytime someone mentions possibly not having a permanent standing army capable of conquering the world.
 
2014-02-26 07:16:42 AM  

Krymson Tyde: Yep. But try convincing the idiot rednecks down here of that. Cutting military spending to them equals shiatting on the service men and women.


Support our troops!  By sending them to every shiathole corner of the world to get shot at!
 
2014-02-26 07:18:37 AM  
From a funding/savings perspective, how much of a difference is this actually going to make, compared to the billions we'll (presumably) continue to shovel to defense contractors?
 
2014-02-26 07:19:19 AM  

stpauler: Less spending should mean less taxes. I bet I know a party that will have a problem with that.

[chart.googleapis.com image 600x200]


We ain't gonna have less taxes while we are running a deficit, unless you think like Bush The Latter. Even if you eliminated DoD entirely, you would just about break even on the deficit. You want to actually reduce the debt, taxes are then going to have to go up.

There is NOTHING that can be done to correct this mess without raising taxes in some form or another. We've given the Job Creators™ 10 years of their lowest taxes ever. It's been a mighty fine holiday for them. Time for them to come back to reality.
 
2014-02-26 07:19:20 AM  
Why do people see military reductions as a problem?  At the very least it will prevent the next Republican president from invading more countries.
 
2014-02-26 07:20:32 AM  
I heard some teatard biatching about this at bar trivia Monday evening.  I said to him, "Didn't the Founding Fathers warn us about standing armies and entangling alliances?"

"That was two hundred years ago!  The world has changed."

"So you admit that we can't rigidly operate our government based on how things were in the late 18th century?  Perhaps that might apply to other things, like health care and gun control?"

You would have thought I had suggested we steal a baby Jesus out of a manger.  Dude was speechless.

/CS,B
 
2014-02-26 07:21:23 AM  

rev. dave: Why do people see military reductions as a problem?  At the very least it will prevent the next Republican president from invading more countries.


Because Military size == Penis Length to in a lot of people's minds.
 
2014-02-26 07:22:01 AM  

kidgenius: Dont' forget ole' Mittens persistence on our Navy being smaller than ever as being a Bad Thing™ and watching Barry smack him upside the head with some knowledge about the force projection capabilities of a carrier group.


Drones make carrier groups look heavy handed.
 
2014-02-26 07:22:33 AM  

spawn73: I guess the pre-WW2 things sounds so good, that you just have to ignore when WW2 started, and when USA increased the size of its army (starting 1939).

Pre-WW2 would be 1938, not 1940.


Think about it for a minute and let it sink in. We have to reduce the number of our military personnel to get back to the size it was in World War II. Yeah we're still coming off of a decade long bender in Iraq and Afghanistan but the size of our standing military has gotten completely out of hand.

/need to start closing military bases too
 
2014-02-26 07:22:58 AM  

stpauler: Less spending should mean less taxes. I bet I know a party that will have a problem with that.


Absolutely not. We've cut taxes more than enough already - too much even - and are skimping on paying for many things we should be taking care of. For instance, our national infrastructure is crumbling and we should be weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels.

We should be doing this AND raising taxes on high earners AND spending more where appropriate.
 
2014-02-26 07:23:01 AM  
It all makes sense when you watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYUxq0Q-i8g 

We've just reached another Civilization tech path milestone, our oldskool land armies are outdated.
 
2014-02-26 07:23:32 AM  

stpauler: Less spending should mean less taxes. I bet I know a party that will have a problem with that.

[chart.googleapis.com image 600x200]


This is the worst graph i've seen in the history of graphs.

/general government?
 
2014-02-26 07:24:12 AM  
*chart
 
2014-02-26 07:25:41 AM  
The GOP is probably lamenting siding with Putin on Syria now.
 
2014-02-26 07:26:39 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: The GOP is probably lamenting siding with Putin on Syria now.


I don't know how that could have gone wrong, they looked deep into his eyes and everything.
 
2014-02-26 07:27:12 AM  

stpauler: Less spending should mean less taxes. I bet I know a party that will have a problem with that.

[chart.googleapis.com image 600x200]


Does US debt == 0?
 
2014-02-26 07:27:50 AM  

Almost Everybody Poops: ARE YOU LISTENING THOSE WHO WANT TO DROWN THE GOVERNMENT IN A BATHTUB!?!


The people who want to drown the government in the bathtub don't consider the military to be part of the government. They consider it to be an American extension of the international business community.
 
2014-02-26 07:28:39 AM  

GoldSpider: Krymson Tyde: Yep. But try convincing the idiot rednecks down here of that. Cutting military spending to them equals shiatting on the service men and women.

Support our troops!  By sending them to every shiathole corner of the world to get shot at!


Exactly! Those evil libtards fark up everything.
 
2014-02-26 07:30:50 AM  
"shrinking the Army to its smallest size since"

Will they be available for delivery in a G.I. Joe Vietnam Footlocker?

/scale thermonuclear weapon included?
//not obscure I hope
 
2014-02-26 07:39:53 AM  
When I was a kid growing up on military bases, the National Guard was always regarded as a complete joke. That fat and terrible force of weekend-warrior has-beens is now the backbone of our military. It's crazy. So my question is, are National Guard numbers being left out of these equations, so we're not really losing as many "troops" as this makes it seem?
 
2014-02-26 07:44:14 AM  

UNC_Samurai: I heard some teatard biatching about this at bar trivia Monday evening.  I said to him, "Didn't the Founding Fathers warn us about standing armies and entangling alliances?"

"That was two hundred years ago!  The world has changed."

"So you admit that we can't rigidly operate our government based on how things were in the late 18th century?  Perhaps that might apply to other things, like health care and gun control?"

You would have thought I had suggested we steal a baby Jesus out of a manger.  Dude was speechless.

/CS,B


To be fair, you probably fried his brain. He'll get back to you once Fox News tells him what to say.
 
2014-02-26 07:44:24 AM  

spawn73: The army is cut to the size of 1940. WW2 started in 1939, which caused USA to increase the size of its army probably figuring it risked being involved at some point.

I guess the pre-WW2 things sounds so good, that you just have to ignore when WW2 started, and when USA increased the size of its army (starting 1939).

Pre-WW2 would be 1938, not 1940.


It's not even the truth. I don't know what they're basing the claim on, but the "cuts" they're proposing(as a way to avoid the larger cuts that must happen according to the sequester btw) don't come anywhere near reducing the "size" to 1940 levels. That claim is just a bit of propaganda that print media has been rehashing uncritically, but MSNBC's been tearing it apart for the last three days.
 
2014-02-26 07:47:27 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: spawn73: I guess the pre-WW2 things sounds so good, that you just have to ignore when WW2 started, and when USA increased the size of its army (starting 1939).

Pre-WW2 would be 1938, not 1940.

Think about it for a minute and let it sink in. We have to reduce the number of our military personnel to get back to the size it was in World War II. Yeah we're still coming off of a decade long bender in Iraq and Afghanistan but the size of our standing military has gotten completely out of hand.

/need to start closing military bases too


The millitary is however one of the few ways the lower-middleclass, and lower classes can get an education.

So perhaps use some of the money saved, on stuff like free education for everyone.
 
2014-02-26 07:47:33 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Cut the military in half.
Problem solved.


Oh, Solomon.
 
2014-02-26 07:50:05 AM  
www.truthdig.com
 
2014-02-26 07:50:34 AM  

stpauler: Less spending should mean less taxes. I bet I know a party that will have a problem with that.

[chart.googleapis.com image 600x200]


Why? USians already pay one of the lowest tax rates found outside tax-haven-States, and rich ones in particular since Sales tax means nothing to them and the capital gains exceptions, combined with the practical death of the luxury tax, allows them to take home and keep generationally a bigger percentage of their yearly earnings than any other sector of the population. If anything, the US needs more taxes, specifically aimed at the rich and paying for pop-wide social programs like national health-care and education, just to re-establish basic goddamn equity on our society.
 
2014-02-26 07:57:21 AM  

SpacePirate: It all makes sense when you watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYUxq0Q-i8g 

We've just reached another Civilization tech path milestone, our oldskool land armies are outdated.


We've certainly done some shiat I ain't proud of under his presidency(the NSA and poorly over-seen Drone stuff; the persecution of whistle-blowers who've brought illegality and waste in the US War, Espionage, and Banking Bureaucracy to light), but it is simply undeniable that Obama is personally one of the funniest Presidents we've had in a long time. I mean, look at that timing and delivery! That is masterful shiat right there.
 
Displayed 50 of 163 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report