US army cutting down?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-02-2014, 11:45 AM
RE: US army cutting down?
(24-02-2014 11:36 AM)nach_in Wrote:  Isn't it better that they cut the soldiers and invest on machines? I mean, I'd rather to make machines fight against machines in the weirdest and most absurdly expensive chess game ever than have people kill each other. I get that it's bad for people loosing their jobs, but isn't it better in the long term?

I don't disagree and appreciate your perspective. But it's the human side of it that gets me Right in my HeartHeart. I understand the pragmatic side of cut backs - I do. And I cannot logically disagree with that. BUT..... still it is very difficult to see soldiers cut loose and sent into civilian life when they chose military as career and ONLY planned for military service only to be let go due to budget constraints.Sadcryface

I am sure glad I am not in the decision chair............ for now THAT would be a job that would suck.
Honestly - it would take a Chippy who only views things 100% with logic and zero heart for that job. And the world does (much as it hurts to admit) need Chippys from time to time.

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2014, 11:46 AM
RE: US army cutting down?
(24-02-2014 11:36 AM)nach_in Wrote:  Isn't it better that they cut the soldiers and invest on machines? I mean, I'd rather to make machines fight against machines in the weirdest and most absurdly expensive chess game ever than have people kill each other. I get that it's bad for people loosing their jobs, but isn't it better in the long term?

That would be fine if that would be the case, but its not. The money they spend on defense (machine) contracts, typically end up on the scrap heap. And others have so many problems that,in the long run are unsustainable.

IMO, maintaining a large present fleet of equipment would make more fiscal sense and at the same time require personal to do so, most of which wouldnt be in harms way either.

If bullshit were music some people would be a brass band.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2014, 12:18 PM
RE: US army cutting down?
(24-02-2014 11:45 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  
(24-02-2014 11:36 AM)nach_in Wrote:  Isn't it better that they cut the soldiers and invest on machines? I mean, I'd rather to make machines fight against machines in the weirdest and most absurdly expensive chess game ever than have people kill each other. I get that it's bad for people loosing their jobs, but isn't it better in the long term?

I don't disagree and appreciate your perspective. But it's the human side of it that gets me Right in my HeartHeart. I understand the pragmatic side of cut backs - I do. And I cannot logically disagree with that. BUT..... still it is very difficult to see soldiers cut loose and sent into civilian life when they chose military as career and ONLY planned for military service only to be let go due to budget constraints.Sadcryface

I am sure glad I am not in the decision chair............ for now THAT would be a job that would suck.
Honestly - it would take a Chippy who only views things 100% with logic and zero heart for that job. And the world does (much as it hurts to admit) need Chippys from time to time.

Of course, the human part is terrible. I won't disagree one bit with you on that.

(24-02-2014 11:46 AM)War Horse Wrote:  
(24-02-2014 11:36 AM)nach_in Wrote:  Isn't it better that they cut the soldiers and invest on machines? I mean, I'd rather to make machines fight against machines in the weirdest and most absurdly expensive chess game ever than have people kill each other. I get that it's bad for people loosing their jobs, but isn't it better in the long term?

That would be fine if that would be the case, but its not. The money they spend on defense (machine) contracts, typically end up on the scrap heap. And others have so many problems that,in the long run are unsustainable.

IMO, maintaining a large present fleet of equipment would make more fiscal sense and at the same time require personal to do so, most of which wouldnt be in harms way either.

I'm not really knowledgeable about this kind of stuff, so if you say so I agree Tongue

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2014, 12:59 PM (This post was last modified: 24-02-2014 01:07 PM by Logica Humano.)
RE: US army cutting down?
(24-02-2014 10:38 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  Yes the military has been cutting back since mid last year. They've been discharging any soldier who's not meeting standards or physical issues. The physical issues part really steams me because most of those soldiers GOT those physical issues due to serving their country only for their country to say "hey thanks........but you're broken now so you must go." Jesus that's harsh.
The suicide rate is at an all time high due to this cut back. Thousands upon thousands of young people for the past 12+ yrs signed up as a career move with many being told since we're not at war that they're no longer needed. My daughter and son-in-law are top shape and #1 in their field so they are safe from this. But OMG their friends? So many of their friends are being "sectioned out".

I get that obviously we need more soldiers when we're at war. I mean Duh - right? But no one really thinks about what happens to So So many of those soldiers when war ends. No......... they don't all get to stay in the military with their paychecks and benefits. Last I heard about 1/4 of the military status of last year will be discharged. Every jacket is being read as I type this and any and ALL excuses for dismissal are being reviewed.

Bottom line - if you are not promote-able--- - you are disposable.

Weeping

I would yell if I knew who to yell at. And it does make pragmatic sense to not keep an influx of soldiers who are not really needed. So what is the solution?


I mean really?

The real issue is this:
When people like me, social democrats who promote strong government and economic regulation, we want military cutbacks -- but not necessarily like this. The primary drain in federal funds happens to be dealing with private sector weapons manufacturers.

Here's an odd statistic. Despite the Army specifically expressing that, due to the surplus of vehicles, they do not need any more Abrams tanks, congress has added $436 million the development and production of said weapon. I suppose the $11 million lobbying dollars that General Dynamics, one of the primary defense contractors in the United States, is being used effectively.

So yeah. Again. Fuck anything remotely resembling economic deregulaton. If anyone thinks we need less regulation at this point, you deserve a swift kick in the head and a ticket to the nearest anarchistic utopia -- Somalia.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2014, 01:31 PM
RE: US army cutting down?
(24-02-2014 12:59 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Here's an odd statistic. Despite the Army specifically expressing that, due to the surplus of vehicles, they do not need any more Abrams tanks, congress has added $436 million the development and production of said weapon. I suppose the $11 million lobbying dollars that General Dynamics, one of the primary defense contractors in the United States, is being used effectively.

It's actually a different stupid motivation, in that particular case.

Those who sponsored the move (above the objects of, y'know, the Army chiefs) were those who could then say back home, "building these tanks here means JOB NUMBERS" - which is actually true, not that that's a good justification - and most of Congress doesn't particularly care that much. But voting against a transparently corrupt local-politics ploy would set a bad precedent, I guess.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2014, 01:42 PM
RE: US army cutting down?
Quote:According to the New York Times the pentagon plans to cut down military spending to a pre WW2 level?

Misstated TGAC. What Hagel proposes is to reduce the "size" of the Army (mainly) to pre-WW2 levels but the cost will remain ruinous.

Frankly, I can see manned aircraft becoming obsolete in the near future as well.

The idea is that having fucked ourselves flat in Iraq and Afghanistan it is going to be a long time before we get involved in a major land war again.

Personally I favor it because it will force future presidents to stop fucking with every other country on earth.

[Image: reality.jpg?imgmax=800]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2014, 01:48 PM
RE: US army cutting down?
(24-02-2014 01:31 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(24-02-2014 12:59 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Here's an odd statistic. Despite the Army specifically expressing that, due to the surplus of vehicles, they do not need any more Abrams tanks, congress has added $436 million the development and production of said weapon. I suppose the $11 million lobbying dollars that General Dynamics, one of the primary defense contractors in the United States, is being used effectively.

It's actually a different stupid motivation, in that particular case.

Those who sponsored the move (above the objects of, y'know, the Army chiefs) were those who could then say back home, "building these tanks here means JOB NUMBERS" - which is actually true, not that that's a good justification - and most of Congress doesn't particularly care that much. But voting against a transparently corrupt local-politics ploy would set a bad precedent, I guess.

The kick in the balls here is that all they're doing is retrofitting the tanks with some new technology that doesnt even come close to the allotted monies for the tank, nor will it provide enough jobs to make any difference.

Its all money going into the companies executives coffers.

If bullshit were music some people would be a brass band.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2014, 01:54 PM
RE: US army cutting down?
(24-02-2014 12:59 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(24-02-2014 10:38 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  Yes the military has been cutting back since mid last year. They've been discharging any soldier who's not meeting standards or physical issues. The physical issues part really steams me because most of those soldiers GOT those physical issues due to serving their country only for their country to say "hey thanks........but you're broken now so you must go." Jesus that's harsh.
The suicide rate is at an all time high due to this cut back. Thousands upon thousands of young people for the past 12+ yrs signed up as a career move with many being told since we're not at war that they're no longer needed. My daughter and son-in-law are top shape and #1 in their field so they are safe from this. But OMG their friends? So many of their friends are being "sectioned out".

I get that obviously we need more soldiers when we're at war. I mean Duh - right? But no one really thinks about what happens to So So many of those soldiers when war ends. No......... they don't all get to stay in the military with their paychecks and benefits. Last I heard about 1/4 of the military status of last year will be discharged. Every jacket is being read as I type this and any and ALL excuses for dismissal are being reviewed.

Bottom line - if you are not promote-able--- - you are disposable.

Weeping

I would yell if I knew who to yell at. And it does make pragmatic sense to not keep an influx of soldiers who are not really needed. So what is the solution?


I mean really?

The real issue is this:
When people like me, social democrats who promote strong government and economic regulation, we want military cutbacks -- but not necessarily like this. The primary drain in federal funds happens to be dealing with private sector weapons manufacturers.

Here's an odd statistic. Despite the Army specifically expressing that, due to the surplus of vehicles, they do not need any more Abrams tanks, congress has added $436 million the development and production of said weapon. I suppose the $11 million lobbying dollars that General Dynamics, one of the primary defense contractors in the United States, is being used effectively.

So yeah. Again. Fuck anything remotely resembling economic deregulaton. If anyone thinks we need less regulation at this point, you deserve a swift kick in the head and a ticket to the nearest anarchistic utopia -- Somalia.


Why is it always such a mess? Sadcryface2

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2014, 01:55 PM
RE: US army cutting down?
(24-02-2014 01:54 PM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  Why is it always such a mess? Sadcryface2

Because we legalized bribery on Capitol Hill.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Logica Humano's post
24-02-2014, 02:08 PM
RE: US army cutting down?
(24-02-2014 01:48 PM)War Horse Wrote:  The kick in the balls here is that all they're doing is retrofitting the tanks with some new technology that doesnt even come close to the allotted monies for the tank, nor will it provide enough jobs to make any difference.

Well, what's "making any difference"? A few hundred jobs in the city in question makes a significant difference. Wasting the rest of the nation's time and money building something no one wants isn't a great idea, but there are thousands of people directly affected by the workflow at the plant.

(24-02-2014 01:48 PM)War Horse Wrote:  Its all money going into the companies executives coffers.

But that's an argument about executive compensation which has nothing to do with the specifics here.
Wink

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: