cbus4life wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: *gasp* Did you ever think that we might not need those 60,000 troops?

no. as long as China, Russia, and North Korea have larger militaries than ours, i dont think we should get smaller. and whether you agree or not, our military is pretty busy right now and could use those 60,000. when looking up the numbers on sizes of other armies, its pretty interesting to see that in relation to our population, our military is pretty small.

I'm pretty sure that we have a larger military than Russia and North Korea, but can't find any numbers to back that up. Or, at least active duty troops.

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

Footwedge wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: *gasp* Did you ever think that we might not need those 60,000 troops?

no. as long as China, Russia, and North Korea have larger militaries than ours, i dont think we should get smaller. and whether you agree or not, our military is pretty busy right now and could use those 60,000. when looking up the numbers on sizes of other armies, its pretty interesting to see that in relation to our population, our military is pretty small.

Glory days...you need to post the numbers you speak of. None of that is true.

haha you are going to tell me thats not true and then not counter it with numbers of your own, ok. its one thing to tell me to show you the numbers(which i forgot) and another to say i am wrong. refer to the above post.
we do have the second largest active duty force, but if we ever did get into a real fight with someone, i am pretty sure more than just active duty soldiers would be needed, and when that is the case, we drop to 7th largest.

BoatShoes wrote: Perhaps 60,000 troops severance checks, thank them for their service...use the money that would have been paid out for the remainder of their contract to help them find training or schooling to find a job in the private sector and let them serve as ready reserves? But, of course, somehow we're going to have to find jobs for them here I guess and that's the problem as others have suggested. Perhaps the feds can pony up their would be salary to state and local governments so they can hire them as more police and fire?

well, if the economy was better and there were jobs, that might make sense. and there are plenty of police and firefighters already laid off that i hope would get hired before those 60,000. atleast now they are ready and trained to defend this country. but i guess 60,000 more unemployed isnt much when you already have a few million.

Glory Days wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: *gasp* Did you ever think that we might not need those 60,000 troops?

no. as long as China, Russia, and North Korea have larger militaries than ours, i dont think we should get smaller. and whether you agree or not, our military is pretty busy right now and could use those 60,000. when looking up the numbers on sizes of other armies, its pretty interesting to see that in relation to our population, our military is pretty small.

Our military is still large in comparison to most countries when looking at the active members per capita.

And are you suggesting that we have to have the largest military in the world? That's both a foolhardy and impossible goal. We have a military that is too big.

I Wear Pants wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: *gasp* Did you ever think that we might not need those 60,000 troops?

no. as long as China, Russia, and North Korea have larger militaries than ours, i dont think we should get smaller. and whether you agree or not, our military is pretty busy right now and could use those 60,000. when looking up the numbers on sizes of other armies, its pretty interesting to see that in relation to our population, our military is pretty small.

Our military is still large in comparison to most countries when looking at the active members per capita.

And are you suggesting that we have to have the largest military in the world? That's both a foolhardy and impossible goal. We have a military that is too big.

no we dont have to have the biggest, but it helps against countries like china, north korea and russia when they can probably get an army bigger that our overall population if they really wanted to. just because we arent fighting the cold war anymore, doesnt mean we shouldnt be prepared to fight non third world countries. our military is too big? about 99% of generals would disagree with that statement.

About 99% of generals when talking about expanding the military are thinking in self interests and the ones that aren't are thinking about fighting in two wars that we shouldn't be involved in.

I Wear Pants wrote: About 99% of generals when talking about expanding the military are thinking in self interests and the ones that aren't are thinking about fighting in two wars that we shouldn't be involved in.

generals dont pick which wars they fight in, thats not their job. their job is to win the wars they are told to fight, and if they need more troops, well they are a hell of a lot more qualified to know what they do or dont need than you, me and most other americans.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/09/27/army_is_worn_too_thin_says_general/

Even if you decided to close these bases, by the time they actually got around to signing the orders and starting on closing them, our financial crisis would be over.

I would agree with closing everything but Germany, Kuwait/Qatar, and and South Korea/Japan. Those bases give us a substantial presence in the theaters that actually matter today. In addition, our military can be everywhere in the world within hours. If there's water, we can get thousands there via an aircraft carrier, no? In my opinion bases offer little more than deterrence. Germany and Russia, Qatar/Kuwait and Iran, and South Korea/Japan and North Korea/China.

I Wear Pants wrote: About 99% of generals when talking about expanding the military are thinking in self interests and the ones that aren't are thinking about fighting in two wars that we shouldn't be involved in.

Where's your link backing up your claim?

A lot of folks saying we should remain in Japan as they have no defense force. But, what about the fact that there is a large faction in Japan that wants the United States to leave? What if they want to build up an army of their own and be our allies? If the japanese fight today anything like I used to hear about when I was in the Navy I don't think I'd mind them in a uniform on our side ooh rah?

BoatShoes wrote: A lot of folks saying we should remain in Japan as they have no defense force. But, what about the fact that there is a large faction in Japan that wants the United States to leave? What if they want to build up an army of their own and be our allies? If the japanese fight today anything like I used to hear about when I was in the Navy I don't think I'd mind them in a uniform on our side ooh rah?

Japan is torn. Yes, there are people that want the U.S. out, but there is always a portion of the population and defense leaders that still want to remain under the U.S. umbrella, both conventional and nuclear.

If they do decide to build a large defense force, it will take a Constitutional change and will take time to raise and properly train it. (They have no real army or the logistics to build one, yet)

So, if next year the US decides to pull out in the next five years, it will take time for the Japanese to rearm and defend themselves. That assumes the population is fully behind the rearming.

sjmvsfscs08 wrote: Even if you decided to close these bases, by the time they actually got around to signing the orders and starting on closing them, our financial crisis would be over.

Had to remark here, because there is no way our financial crisis would be over before we can get these bases closed. Our national debt will take decades to pay off, and closing those bases is one of the cuts that will be necessary in order to pay off the deficit.

bigmanbt wrote:

sjmvsfscs08 wrote: Even if you decided to close these bases, by the time they actually got around to signing the orders and starting on closing them, our financial crisis would be over.

Had to remark here, because there is no way our financial crisis would be over before we can get these bases closed. Our national debt will take decades to pay off, and closing those bases is one of the cuts that will be necessary in order to pay off the deficit.

The national debt will never be paid off. In fact, it is extremely unlikely that even one annual budget surplus surfaces over the next 30 years. As long as the private sector's aggregate job loss trend continues, there is zero chance of cutting into the deficit. Zero.

Since you feel that there is nothing we can do about it, then it's time to sit back and enjoy the ride to our financial Armeggedon.

Glory Days wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: About 99% of generals when talking about expanding the military are thinking in self interests and the ones that aren't are thinking about fighting in two wars that we shouldn't be involved in.

generals dont pick which wars they fight in, thats not their job. their job is to win the wars they are told to fight, and if they need more troops, well they are a hell of a lot more qualified to know what they do or dont need than you, me and most other americans.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/09/27/army_is_worn_too_thin_says_general/

But over the last several years, Bush and Obama both bowed to the generals' wishes.

Footwedge wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: About 99% of generals when talking about expanding the military are thinking in self interests and the ones that aren't are thinking about fighting in two wars that we shouldn't be involved in.

generals dont pick which wars they fight in, thats not their job. their job is to win the wars they are told to fight, and if they need more troops, well they are a hell of a lot more qualified to know what they do or dont need than you, me and most other americans.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/09/27/army_is_worn_too_thin_says_general/

But over the last several years, Bush and Obama both bowed to the generals' wishes.

and they should, Generals know how to fight a war.

Glory Days wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: *gasp* Did you ever think that we might not need those 60,000 troops?

no. as long as China, Russia, and North Korea have larger militaries than ours, i dont think we should get smaller. and whether you agree or not, our military is pretty busy right now and could use those 60,000. when looking up the numbers on sizes of other armies, its pretty interesting to see that in relation to our population, our military is pretty small.

Glory days...you need to post the numbers you speak of. None of that is true.

haha you are going to tell me thats not true and then not counter it with numbers of your own, ok. its one thing to tell me to show you the numbers(which i forgot) and another to say i am wrong. refer to the above post.
we do have the second largest active duty force, but if we ever did get into a real fight with someone, i am pretty sure more than just active duty soldiers would be needed, and when that is the case, we drop to 7th largest.

So what? Sheer numbers don't mean much anymore. Our weapons and technology is so far advanced compared to most any other nation that they wouldn't stand a chance. China could have 100 million soldiers, but their ability to transport them anywhere is limited. IMO you could take our military and put it against the next 5 strongest militaries and we would still crush them all.

Glory Days wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: About 99% of generals when talking about expanding the military are thinking in self interests and the ones that aren't are thinking about fighting in two wars that we shouldn't be involved in.

generals dont pick which wars they fight in, thats not their job. their job is to win the wars they are told to fight, and if they need more troops, well they are a hell of a lot more qualified to know what they do or dont need than you, me and most other americans.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/09/27/army_is_worn_too_thin_says_general/

But over the last several years, Bush and Obama both bowed to the generals' wishes.

and they should, Generals know how to fight a war.

Generals know how to fight a war? Yea, they're doing terrific jobs in Afghanistan and Iraq. We've been fighting in both countries for the better part of a decade. Generals pussy foot around just like politicians. It's job security for them. Prolong the war, they still are needed, they still have a job.

If there was no war to be fought, it'd be like the 90's when the military was downsized and those generals would be out of jobs and they know it.

dwccrew wrote: So what? Sheer numbers don't mean much anymore. Our weapons and technology is so far advanced compared to most any other nation that they wouldn't stand a chance. China could have 100 million soldiers, but their ability to transport them anywhere is limited. IMO you could take our military and put it against the next 5 strongest militaries and we would still crush them all.

you serious? crush them? i have no doubt we could win the fight but it would not be one sided. not all large armies were like Iraq in the Gulf War(and iraq didnt have much of an airforce). we may have awesome technology, but numbers can overwhelm quality and technology. if N korea wanted to invade the south, our forces there would be destroyed in seconds, we are nothing but a speed bump there. they have more artillery pointed at us there than we can shake a stick at.

Generals know how to fight a war? Yea, they're doing terrific jobs in Afghanistan and Iraq. We've been fighting in both countries for the better part of a decade. Generals pussy foot around just like politicians. It's job security for them. Prolong the war, they still are needed, they still have a job.

If there was no war to be fought, it'd be like the 90's when the military was downsized and those generals would be out of jobs and they know it.

just because a war isnt won in 100 hours doesnt mean we arent winning. and we were caught with our pants down with underfunded, undersized, and underarmed military. we've been scrambling to catch up ever since 9/11. it wasnt until after OIF I that the unit i was with finally had 1 rifle assigned per soldier. i am glad we didnt get into a big war with a developed country.

Glory Days wrote:
you serious? crush them? i have no doubt we could win the fight but it would not be one sided. not all large armies were like Iraq in the Gulf War(and iraq didnt have much of an airforce). we may have awesome technology, but numbers can overwhelm quality and technology. if N korea wanted to invade the south, our forces there would be destroyed in seconds, we are nothing but a speed bump there. they have more artillery pointed at us there than we can shake a stick at.

Iraq had the 6th largest Air Force in the world and one of the largest in the region before we destroyed them in the Gulf War. Do some research before making statements.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2009/1215/Once-mighty-Iraq-Air-Force-rebuilds-but-pilots-keep-low-profile

Once the sixth largest in the world, Iraq’s Air Force was hit hard in the 1991 Gulf War and then grounded when the United States, Britain, and France seized control of Iraq’s airspace in the 1990s.

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

In August 1990, Iraq had one of the largest air forces in the region even after the long Iran–Iraq War. The air force at that time contained more than 500 aircraft in their inventory.

While 500 aircraft doesn't seem like much to us, it is alot compared to most countries in the world.

Glory Days wrote: just because a war isnt won in 100 hours doesnt mean we arent winning. and we were caught with our pants down with underfunded, undersized, and underarmed military. we've been scrambling to catch up ever since 9/11. it wasnt until after OIF I that the unit i was with finally had 1 rifle assigned per soldier. i am glad we didnt get into a big war with a developed country.

Caught with our pants down? With the most powerful military in the world, should we have to catch up? When are you going to come to the realization, that many of us did years ago, that everything about this war, from the politicians to the generals, has been FUCKED up? No, I don't expect a war to be won in 100 hours; this war has gone on for close to 8 years on both fronts. Name a war/conflict in US history that has gone that long with major combat operations still being executed.

I think people need to come into this decade and realize there is almost no chance we will go to war against Russia or China. Or any other traditional world power. It simply won't happen.

But that excuse is continually used to justify ridiculous military spending.

^^^^Precisely. With globalization, most industrialized countries rely too much on each other to fight each other.

eersandbeers wrote: I think people need to come into this decade and realize there is almost no chance we will go to war against Russia or China. Or any other traditional world power. It simply won't happen.

But that excuse is continually used to justify ridiculous military spending.

For the most part I agree. To say it won't happen would be foolish. The world is a very dangerous place. It only takes the right circumstances for all hell to break loose.

^^^^I think that's why eeers said there is almost no chance, not that there is no chance. I agree with what you are saying though.

of those 500, how many were transport aircraft and other non fighters? from the article:

Theoretically, the IQAF should have been 'hardened' by the conflict with Iran, but post-war purges decimated the air force, as the Iraqi regime struggled to bring it back under total control.[7] Training was brought to the minimum during the whole of 1990

we were caught with our pants down still training our army to defend Europe against the Russian horde invading through the Fulda Gap. we were not prepared to fight wars like we currently are in Afghanistan and Iraq. look how long it took to figure it out even though the plans have been on the table since Vietnam(many of Petraeus' ideas came from General Abrams).

eersandbeers wrote: I think people need to come into this decade and realize there is almost no chance we will go to war against Russia or China. Or any other traditional world power. It simply won't happen.

But that excuse is continually used to justify ridiculous military spending.

dwccrew wrote: ^^^^Precisely. With globalization, most industrialized countries rely too much on each other to fight each other.

those are the exact reasons why we could goto war. what happens when China invades Taiwan? What happens when N. Korea finally has enough of starving and on Kim Jong-il's death bed he orders an invasion of the south? what about when china's economy collapses and its time to pony up with all the money china has given us? to completely ignore the possibility of a war against a developed country is flat out stupid and irresponsible.

Glory Days wrote: of those 500, how many were transport aircraft and other non fighters? from the article:

Theoretically, the IQAF should have been 'hardened' by the conflict with Iran, but post-war purges decimated the air force, as the Iraqi regime struggled to bring it back under total control.[7] Training was brought to the minimum during the whole of 1990

we were caught with our pants down still training our army to defend Europe against the Russian horde invading through the Fulda Gap. we were not prepared to fight wars like we currently are in Afghanistan and Iraq. look how long it took to figure it out even though the plans have been on the table since Vietnam(many of Petraeus' ideas came from General Abrams).

eersandbeers wrote: I think people need to come into this decade and realize there is almost no chance we will go to war against Russia or China. Or any other traditional world power. It simply won't happen.

But that excuse is continually used to justify ridiculous military spending.

dwccrew wrote: ^^^^Precisely. With globalization, most industrialized countries rely too much on each other to fight each other.

those are the exact reasons why we could goto war. what happens when China invades Taiwan? What happens when N. Korea finally has enough of starving and on Kim Jong-il's death bed he orders an invasion of the south? what about when china's economy collapses and its time to pony up with all the money china has given us? to completely ignore the possibility of a war against a developed country is flat out stupid and irresponsible.

LOL, not sure what the quote you quoted from the article has to do with anything.

And again, eers said almost no chance. Of course there is always a chance, but there is also a chance that an asteroid could hit Earth

dwccrew wrote:

Glory Days wrote: of those 500, how many were transport aircraft and other non fighters? from the article:

Theoretically, the IQAF should have been 'hardened' by the conflict with Iran, but post-war purges decimated the air force, as the Iraqi regime struggled to bring it back under total control.[7] Training was brought to the minimum during the whole of 1990

we were caught with our pants down still training our army to defend Europe against the Russian horde invading through the Fulda Gap. we were not prepared to fight wars like we currently are in Afghanistan and Iraq. look how long it took to figure it out even though the plans have been on the table since Vietnam(many of Petraeus' ideas came from General Abrams).

eersandbeers wrote: I think people need to come into this decade and realize there is almost no chance we will go to war against Russia or China. Or any other traditional world power. It simply won't happen.

But that excuse is continually used to justify ridiculous military spending.

dwccrew wrote: ^^^^Precisely. With globalization, most industrialized countries rely too much on each other to fight each other.

those are the exact reasons why we could goto war. what happens when China invades Taiwan? What happens when N. Korea finally has enough of starving and on Kim Jong-il's death bed he orders an invasion of the south? what about when china's economy collapses and its time to pony up with all the money china has given us? to completely ignore the possibility of a war against a developed country is flat out stupid and irresponsible.

LOL, not sure what the quote you quoted from the article has to do with anything.

And again, eers said almost no chance. Of course there is always a chance, but there is also a chance that an asteroid could hit Earth

it was just to show that their Air Force was also a bag of ass.

haha and when that asteroid came, look what we had to do, get Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck to go up and destroy it. it worked, but not my first option!

majorspark wrote:

For the most part I agree. To say it won't happen would be foolish. The world is a very dangerous place. It only takes the right circumstances for all hell to break loose.

Well I didn't say it wouldn't happen, but I did say there is almost no chance of it happening. The only way it will happen is a complete breakdown of the global system.

Why do you think we haven't attacked Iran? Or that Israel hasn't attacked Iran.

Wars between two countries does not only include those two countries. It includes the whole world. A US war against Russia would devastate the European economy who rely on Russia for natural gas. A war against Iran would devastate most of the world because of their oil and the Straits of Tiran.

We are all linked because of globalization and the world is inherently safer because of it.

Glory Days wrote:v
those are the exact reasons why we could goto war. what happens when China invades Taiwan? What happens when N. Korea finally has enough of starving and on Kim Jong-il's death bed he orders an invasion of the south? what about when china's economy collapses and its time to pony up with all the money china has given us? to completely ignore the possibility of a war against a developed country is flat out stupid and irresponsible.

China won't invade Taiwan. If they do, it isn't important enough for us to go to war over.

North Korea could invade the South because the Kim regime is just that unpredictable. But he is largely held in check because of China pretty much controlling the whole country including Kim.