We can no longer afford this military and its demands of world occupation.

[Postman]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-06-25-Military-repairs_N.htm
Military facing $100B in equipment repairs

The warmongers/profiteers will always look for the next bogeyman to justify the outrageous transfer of wealth from our pockets to theirs...

The people of the United States cannot afford these play-toys of the comfortable and secure.

It's time to grow the fuck up and cut the shit out of the War Department and start re-investing in our country for productive endeavors.

[SammyWinstonJack]

1. K&R!

[williesgirl]

2. War - the gift that keeps on giving to Repuke criminals. rec'd

[groovedaddy]

3. Then who will advance the cause of the New World Order!?! n.t

[bdamomma]

4. these criminals need to be bodily removed

[raccoon]

5. Won't get any argument from me on this on. Rec'd. nt

[Stinky The Clown]

6. Your OP title makes it sound as if you're blaming the military ......

... not sure if you are or not.

The blame belongs on the civilian leadership.

That said, I agree with you completely. I believe we can have more than adequate ability to **defend** ourselves on a budget 25% of what we have now. To be clear, I am advocating a reduction of 75% in military spending.

[Recursion]

18. Maybe I'm imperialistic, but I like our Navy

Or maybe it's just the Marine in me. But I do think having the most powerful navy in the world as a stated goal isn't currently a bad idea; if India or China wanted to start an 1890's-type naval building race I would rethink it. Barring that, I do think the world more or less appreciates what our Navy does worldwide to counter piracy.

I think our strategic bombing capabilities are too big for the realistic threats we face; I'd rather see the air force concentrate on tactical air supremacy over the US (so that, say, guys can't hijack 4 jetlines without a single fighter responding in 2 hours) and if there is a need to project airpower to let Naval and Marine aviation take care of that.

As much as I dislike Rumsfeld, I think his ideas about force structure were right: we need to re-make the brigade and concentrate on deployment and maneuver capabilities.

[mike_c]

7. K&R-- agreed 100 percent....

I would like to see the Pentagon's budget cut by three quarters or more. The U.S. spends more on its military than anyone else on Earth. What a waste!

[Spouting Horn]

9. Why does the US have troops

in over 100 countries?

Is there a sane reason for the presence of any US military on European/Korean/Middle Eastern soil?

I can understand having a strong Navy, but they're on water, not land.

[mike_c]

10. one word....

Imperialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson

[Recursion]

17. Oddly enough, Rumsfeld agreed with you on that

He did a lot to reduce our force levels in Europe, Korea, Japan, etc.

In fact, the only reason we have any troops left in Germany is because the towns the bases are in lobbied to keep a presence there so their economy wouldn't go away.

[Owl]

12. Agree.

[Squatch]

8. While I think you're partially correct, the problem you highlight

is one of economy. The larger (and more technologically advanced) the fighting force you have, the longer and more expensive its logistics tail becomes. As a result, and because of a continued high operational tempo, the costs of maintenance start to chew into your budget. Additionally, because the force of mechanics hasn't grown, equipment that is due maintenance either goes without (and is continued to be used in an unsafe manner) or is pulled out of the operational force to await (sometimes for a very long time) repairs. It's definitely a tough nut to crack.

However, I will contend (and this is due, in part, to being an active duty service member), that it is critical that we continue to maintain a modern expeditionary fighting force. I would like to see the overhead chopped a bit, which can be done through leveraging technology and automation.

The SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT thing that will keep the cost of our military down is a CinC who isn't itching to send our forces into every conceivable protracted conflict.

[eridani]

11. We need a really serious look at what we need for actual defense

This isn't 1945 exactly.

[Selatius]

19. Our military is still essentially built for a Cold War conflict. The Cold War is over.

Many of the weapons in the inventory are better suited for attacking other countries as opposed to defending home soil.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Being the biggest bully on the block is expensive...and stupid.

[cobalt1999]

14. No we don't

That means we also need to stop being the world's policeman. I'm okay if there is another world problem, we are only able to supply a little help (let the other countries ante up).

We are not going to be invaded, and we need to be more isolationist when it comes to the military.

[Dogtown]

15. Yes, but

There is growing dissatisfaction in the military with this war and the CinC.

It's really the dominionist agenda orchestrating the wars. True, many senior military leaders are republican, but the neocon/dominionist movement has infiltrated the GOP.

That's why they're allowing us a "rest term" like Carter; they'll block as many policies of Obama as possible (and he could spend 2 entire terms trying to repair the damage, working on nothing else, and still not be able to reverse the destruction of citizen's rights) and return to power with another puppet to renew the erosion.

I'd like to hope, but they kill our leaders, steal elections, wage illegal wars and have stripped us of our most basic civil rights.

And they are fucking relentless.

[Recursion]

16. I don't remeber the military asking for the war

I remember a bunch of civilians doing that, and a bunch of alleged journalists beating the drum.