Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on October 22, 2013, 07:21:19 PM
-
This is just criminal. What happens if there is another conflict? All those people in DC should be sent home. >:(
Army chief: Just 2 brigades combat-ready
Published October 22, 2013
FoxNews.com
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno revealed this week that just two Army brigades are combat-ready, with budget cuts hampering the military's ability to train its own troops.
The startling comments were made Monday at the Association of the U.S. Army conference. Odierno and Army Secretary John McHugh both addressed the fallout from the budget cuts, as well as the recent partial government shutdown, and appealed to lawmakers to restore some stability to military funding.
"Functioning like this is just dysfunctional," Odierno said.
He said that after the sequester kicked in, "we had to stop training basically" in the last six months of the year. He said the recently passed stopgap funding bill has further reduced the Army's ability to train, and warned that the recurring budget battles in Washington could have serious consequences for America's fighting force.
"So the worst-case scenario is you ask me deploy thousands of soldiers somewhere, and we have not properly trained them to go, because we simply don't have the dollars and money," he said.
Odierno said the goal is to beef up the number of combat-ready brigades to seven by June, but voiced doubt as to whether that could happen.
"Right now, we have in the Army two brigades that are trained. That's it. Two," he said.
That doesn't count brigades in Afghanistan, but Odierno noted those aren't really combat-ready either, since they're deployed for "training and advising only."
The so-called sequester kicked in earlier this year, as a result of lawmakers failing to reach a broader budget agreement. Across-the-board cuts slashed away at virtually every agency's budget -- but while lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have criticized the policy, many fiscal conservatives want to retain the overall spending reductions since they have helped trim the deficit.
The question for them is whether Congress can give agencies more flexibility; and many lawmakers from both parties still want to provide some relief to the military. Cuts to entitlements could also be considered as part of a deal to relieve sequester cuts elsewhere.
Congress and the White House ended the partial government shutdown last week with a short-term funding bill. Under the terms, lawmakers must reach a broader agreement by mid-December. A bipartisan committee will soon get to work, and is likely to weigh requests to curb or modify the sequester.
McHugh echoed Odierno's warnings, describing the current budget picture as "particularly perplexing and largely without precedent."
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.
"So certainly I, for one, would argue that those kinds of comparisons are a fool's errand," he said.
McHugh said training and equipment are "absolutely essential."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/22/army-chief-just-2-brigades-combat-ready/
-
some getbiggers (like 333386/soul crusher) have argued we should cut the military in HALF over the next 5 years.
Some think we just can't afford so many bases. They think we don't need 50,000 troops just hanging out in south korea or elsewhere.
Ron Paul says U.S. has military personnel in 130 nations. Some people argue that's too much.
Are they right, or are they wrong? (cue eye rolling or maybe, just maybe, some actual political debate!)
-
Anyone heard about all the military high ups Obama has replaced? What's the deal with that?
-
some getbiggers (like 333386/soul crusher) have argued we should cut the military in HALF over the next 5 years.
Some think we just can't afford so many bases. They think we don't need 50,000 troops just hanging out in south korea or elsewhere.
Ron Paul says U.S. has military personnel in 130 nations. Some people argue that's too much.
Are they right, or are they wrong? (cue eye rolling or maybe, just maybe, some actual political debate!)
theyre both right and wrong. We need less of a presencd around the globe, but we sure as shit need more than 2 combat ready brigades at home.
-
theyre both right and wrong. We need less of a presencd around the globe, but we sure as shit need more than 2 combat ready brigades at home.
Truth.
-
theyre both right and wrong. We need less of a presencd around the globe, but we sure as shit need more than 2 combat ready brigades at home.
I don't think the answer is bumping spending by a half-trillion to get 2 more combat ready brigades at home.
Maybe we slice 10% off most of the bases worldwide and bring those troops home?
This reminds me of my little brother... he had a nice pharmacy shootout, so ya know he loved his guns... He'd be late on the rent every month, but he'd buy a new glock or mossberg every month. In fact, this is EXACTLY what we have here... nat'l debt growing every month, as we keep on building bases and expanding military lol.
At some point, you say "Well, we have 1000 bases, but we're broke. MAYBE we can scale back to 800 bases and start shrinking the debt". No, that'd be unpatriotic, right? Soft on terror, right? LOL keep on buying the monthly glocks as the eviction notices pile up :)
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/23/military-sources-obama-administration-purging-commanders
-
I have to laugh at how gullible some of u are. Of course Odierno and McHugh are going to say they need more funding. That's their job. Despite the fact that we spend more money on defense than most of the nations of the world combined, the Pentagon never has enough. The military is a government agency and government agencies are about getting the most funding that they can out of Congress. The military has the advantage of scaring people into thinking China is going to be rolling through LA in a couple of weeks if we don't give them more money.
I concur. Having a large standing army is not as useful or necessary as it was in the past. Often more can be accomplished by precision strikes with small tactical groups.
-
This is just criminal. What happens if there is another conflict? All those people in DC should be sent home. >:(
Army chief: Just 2 brigades combat-ready
Published October 22, 2013
FoxNews.com
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno revealed this week that just two Army brigades are combat-ready, with budget cuts hampering the military's ability to train its own troops.
The startling comments were made Monday at the Association of the U.S. Army conference. Odierno and Army Secretary John McHugh both addressed the fallout from the budget cuts, as well as the recent partial government shutdown, and appealed to lawmakers to restore some stability to military funding.
"Functioning like this is just dysfunctional," Odierno said.
He said that after the sequester kicked in, "we had to stop training basically" in the last six months of the year. He said the recently passed stopgap funding bill has further reduced the Army's ability to train, and warned that the recurring budget battles in Washington could have serious consequences for America's fighting force.
"So the worst-case scenario is you ask me deploy thousands of soldiers somewhere, and we have not properly trained them to go, because we simply don't have the dollars and money," he said.
Odierno said the goal is to beef up the number of combat-ready brigades to seven by June, but voiced doubt as to whether that could happen.
"Right now, we have in the Army two brigades that are trained. That's it. Two," he said.
That doesn't count brigades in Afghanistan, but Odierno noted those aren't really combat-ready either, since they're deployed for "training and advising only."
The so-called sequester kicked in earlier this year, as a result of lawmakers failing to reach a broader budget agreement. Across-the-board cuts slashed away at virtually every agency's budget -- but while lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have criticized the policy, many fiscal conservatives want to retain the overall spending reductions since they have helped trim the deficit.
The question for them is whether Congress can give agencies more flexibility; and many lawmakers from both parties still want to provide some relief to the military. Cuts to entitlements could also be considered as part of a deal to relieve sequester cuts elsewhere.
Congress and the White House ended the partial government shutdown last week with a short-term funding bill. Under the terms, lawmakers must reach a broader agreement by mid-December. A bipartisan committee will soon get to work, and is likely to weigh requests to curb or modify the sequester.
McHugh echoed Odierno's warnings, describing the current budget picture as "particularly perplexing and largely without precedent."
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.
"So certainly I, for one, would argue that those kinds of comparisons are a fool's errand," he said.
McHugh said training and equipment are "absolutely essential."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/22/army-chief-just-2-brigades-combat-ready/
What's criminal is that you spend as much as most nations combined on defence while you have people living in destitution at home.
-
Not sure about that...... I agree we spend too much on defense but....
What countries on earth dont have homeless people?
Also, why are people continually trying to immigrate here?
-
Not sure about that...... I agree we spend too much on defense but....
What countries on earth dont have homeless people?
Also, why are people continually trying to immigrate here?
The argument that there are homeless people in other countries is an argument of apathy. Alot, of things occur in many countries that are wrong, the amount of wrongness isn't a sliding scale. There should be none in the greatest nation on earth. You have more then enough revenue to help correct the social and economic disparities, yet you continue to slash entitlements (sometimes, things people have paid into) and keep the military booming. The military industrial complex is quite evident and as we have seen, many of the "wars" are just elitist wet dreams, vietnam, iraq etc.
It's criminal to think securing other nations and risking the lives of people for unethical reasons is anywhere near the importance of creating a prosperous society for all.
-
What's criminal is that you send billions of taxpayer dollars to foreign countries while you have people living in destitution at home.
Fixed
-
Fixed
Good job!
-
Good job!
Yea and the ONLY group that wants to end the endless flow of money overseas are the tea party conservatives, who you hate so much
-
Yea and the ONLY group that wants to end the endless flow of money overseas are the tea party conservatives, who you hate so much
They are idealogues who have exhibited lack of reason when trying to implement their goals. The fact is that not all things are possible.
Ron Paul thinks jesus is coming back but has many other good ideas. One idea in a pile of shitty ones doesn't galvanize my decision.
-
They are idealogues who have exhibited lack of reason when trying to implement their goals. The fact is that not all things are possible.
Ron Paul thinks jesus is coming back but has many other good ideas. One idea in a pile of shitty ones doesn't galvanize my decision.
At the same time the ideological left in Europe and the United States are forcing mass immigration on their citizens because of an egalitarian fantasy that all people have the same values no matter their religion or culture of origin.
-
At the same time the ideological left in Europe and the United States are forcing mass immigration on their citizens because of an egalitarian fantasy that all people have the same values no matter their religion or culture of origin.
Coming from Europe i can confirm this.
-
Yea and the ONLY group that wants to end the endless flow of money overseas are the tea party conservatives, who you hate so much
Yeah, unfortunately it has been hijacked by people who go for the low iq voters instead of going for high iq voters with conservative values.
-
At the same time the ideological left in Europe and the United States are forcing mass immigration on their citizens because of an egalitarian fantasy that all people have the same values no matter their religion or culture of origin.
so you are suggesting that based on race you can develop a scale of worth? you sure culture, environment etc isn't skewing your view of this one variable?
-
Yeah, unfortunately it has been hijacked by people who go for the low iq voters instead of going for high iq voters with conservative values.
Every party has low info voters. There are more 'low-info voters' than there are informed ones in the world. The tea party gets portrayed in thr liberal media as a bunch of dumb rednecks, and that is expected..but the truth is the majority of the movement are pretty reasonable people, as evidenced by the policies they support.
It is common knowledge that the democratic party has the absolute lock on sheer numbers of low-info voters; they are the ones pushing the welfare state and all the socialist-leaning policies..the big city ghettos and hordes of poor, government-dependant classes in the united states ARE THEIR BASE.
In the above post you agreed with Archer's assesment of europe, in which left leaning ideologues are swamping european nations with 3rd world immigrants while at the same time undermining their own nations and peoples. This is the exact same ideology that the left in the united states is trying to push on us- so why do you support them here?
-
so you are suggesting that based on race you can develop a scale of worth? you sure culture, environment etc isn't skewing your view of this one variable?
"At the same time the ideological left in Europe and the United States are forcing mass immigration on their citizens because of an egalitarian fantasy that all people have the same values no matter their religion or culture of origin."
Don't see the word race anywhere in my statement.
-
If you want to look at a world without America....look at the Middle East right now...look at north Africa....look at Syria. Thats isolationist America, even though we're not being isolationist. The current admin is a joke. They can neither leverage American hard power ie Syria and Libya, nor soft power Iran, Egypt and now Saudi Arabia. The trouble with you idiot libs is that you don't understand that we're only in the Middle East for oil...period. You think we want colonies? Sure you make noise about wars for oil, but I really don't think you believe it. I think you really think republicans somehow enjoy killing arabs or something. Its only ever been about oil. Until there's something better...its oil. It doesn't matter that we're on the road to our own independency. If Western Europe needs it, we have to be involved. If our markets need oil, we have to protect them. Nobody can project power to protect oil and trade routes except us. I could give a god damm about the people living there. Necrosis and his lib utopian dreams are hilarious. You can fit the Canadian military into Ralph Wilson stadium...they will not be protecting you anytime soon. Obama has obligations to ensure our way of life. He has utterly disregarded his job as president and commander in chief.
-
As for money and readyness. I just sent wo of my folks to the isle of Grenada, staying at a 5 star resort...133 a day per diem plus hotel room...on the beach...to basically do an hours worth of work on one day. The shit we waste money on instead of what we need to spend is legion. Nobdoy needs to be cut...how we spend needs to be overhauled.
-
What's criminal is that you spend as much as most nations combined on defence while you have people living in destitution at home.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact we have two combat-ready brigades at home.
And we already do enough to take care of people in need. We spend an enormous amount of money on subsidized housing, food stamps, free medical care, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, job training, education, etc. Plus private citizens generously donate time and money. But none of this has anything to do with having combat-ready troops.
-
The argument that there are homeless people in other countries is an argument of apathy. Alot, of things occur in many countries that are wrong, the amount of wrongness isn't a sliding scale. There should be none in the greatest nation on earth.
Who says? Should the greatest of anything be absolutely perfect?
Are you not applying sliding scale when you set that standard?
You have more then enough revenue to help correct the social and economic disparities, yet you continue to slash entitlements (sometimes, things people have paid into) and keep the military booming. The military industrial complex is quite evident and as we have seen, many of the "wars" are just elitist wet dreams, vietnam, iraq etc.
It's criminal to think securing other nations and risking the lives of people for unethical reasons is anywhere near the importance of creating a prosperous society for all.
I think nearly all nations have enough. unfortunately, doing too much of it breeds an unproductive society. Its tough to find a balance and that balance is always a good subject. of debate.
It can be argued we should always do mare and we should always do less.
-
However to a lib, logic will not prevail. Thread derailed by Necrosis...congrats idiot.
-
Don't wary too much, French Foreign Legion can lend brigade or 2 if is needed ;)
-
What's criminal is that you spend as much as most nations combined on defence while you have people living in destitution at home.
epic unrealistic and delusional utopian vision.
never gonna happen.
many homeless are homeless because theyd rather drink and shoot dope than have a life. No one should give a fuck about these people if they dont give a fuck about themselves.
-
Every party has low info voters. There are more 'low-info voters' than there are informed ones in the world. The tea party gets portrayed in thr liberal media as a bunch of dumb rednecks, and that is expected..but the truth is the majority of the movement are pretty reasonable people, as evidenced by the policies they support.
Can you show me some reasonable Tea Party people then? A link or something
It is common knowledge that the democratic party has the absolute lock on sheer numbers of low-info voters; they are the ones pushing the welfare state and all the socialist-leaning policies..the big city ghettos and hordes of poor, government-dependant classes in the united states ARE THEIR BASE.
The states that recieve the most money from the government is red states ???
In the above post you agreed with Archer's assesment of europe, in which left leaning ideologues are swamping european nations with 3rd world immigrants while at the same time undermining their own nations and peoples. This is the exact same ideology that the left in the united states is trying to push on us- so why do you support them here?
I think your brain is to wired in to this right-left thing.
You can be pro-healthcare and other stuff you call "left" but without letting 1000's of muslims in to your country.
-
gimmick
-
The people in the red states recieving all that money are urban dwelling democratic voters. The people who recieve all that money do not vote republican. I think you are a little out of you element here whork, its hard for you to comment so much on america and american politics when you do not live here and your actual knowledge of both are pretty limited and show all the characterizations of someone raised on left wing european media when you are discussing your views of 'how things are' in the united states.
-
Who says? Should the greatest of anything be absolutely perfect?
Are you not applying sliding scale when you set that standard?
I think nearly all nations have enough. unfortunately, doing too much of it breeds an unproductive society. Its tough to find a balance and that balance is always a good subject. of debate.
It can be argued we should always do mare and we should always do less.
I do think it should strive for excellance in many key areas yes. Homelessness and poverty should not exist, do you not see the absolute over abundence of material goods? Does it not hurt you to see another human suffering terribly when you see people drive around in sports cars etc. What I am saying is our priorities as a species have to change or we will die. Humans as a species are social animals, we rely on each other and teamwork and the ability to communicate have been our crowning achievement.
-
utter nonsense
does anyone believe or understand how small 2 brigades are......someone wants more TDY and per diem, ahole
-
gimmick
Yep.
-
I do think it should strive for excellance in many key areas yes. Homelessness and poverty should not exist, do you not see the absolute over abundence of material goods? Does it not hurt you to see another human suffering terribly when you see people drive around in sports cars etc. What I am saying is our priorities as a species have to change or we will die. Humans as a species are social animals, we rely on each other and teamwork and the ability to communicate have been our crowning achievement.
Typical utopian lib fantasy...
Of course everyone wants a world where no one will be hungry or poor or sick, where there is no suffering or injustice.
The reality is tho, that will never and can never happen. There will always be haves and have nots, even in the most rigid socialist societies. All of these things are part of the human condition and always will be so.
The sooner you libs gets on board with this REALITY the better things will be
-
Typical utopian lib fantasy...
Of course everyone wants a world where no one will be hungry or poor or sick, where there is no suffering or injustice.
The reality is tho, that will never and can never happen. There will always be haves and have nots, even in the most rigid socialist societies. All of these things are part of the human condition and always will be so.
The sooner you libs gets on board with this REALITY the better things will be
True. You can never legislate poverty away. All you do is exchange one set of problems for another.
-
Typical utopian lib fantasy...
Of course everyone wants a world where no one will be hungry or poor or sick, where there is no suffering or injustice.
The reality is tho, that will never and can never happen. There will always be haves and have nots, even in the most rigid socialist societies. All of these things are part of the human condition and always will be so.
The sooner you libs gets on board with this REALITY the better things will be
They don't have to be, why is it a fantasy? I am not saying people can have more then others, but there has to be a social floor and extreme poverty and inequality that exists is a stain on a civilized nation.
The US is not only not good but terrible in terms of inequality. There is no reason besides greed.
-
True. You can never legislate poverty away. All you do is exchange one set of problems for another.
Poverty no, but homelessness, people without medical help(psyhoclogical) living on the streets etc can be legislated away for the most part.
-
They don't have to be, why is it a fantasy? I am not saying people can have more then others, but there has to be a social floor and extreme poverty and inequality that exists is a stain on a civilized nation.
The US is not only not good but terrible in terms of inequality. There is no reason besides greed.
Not true at all. Both the state and federal government spend a plethora of money on social programs for poor people and people who have fallen on hard times. For example, someone who gets laid off from their job can get paid for a year or longer through unemployment compensation. Someone who doesn't make enough to put food on the table can get food stamps to buy food. Someone who cannot afford a place to live can receive subsidized housing that covers most of their rent. Poor women with children can receive money, food, and medical care for their kids. People who don't have medical plans can get free medical care through Medicaid and their state equivalents and at county hospitals. People who are injured on the job can get paid (for not working) through workers' compensation. People who become disabled can get disability benefits. People who need new job skills can get free taxpayer funded job training. People who cannot afford higher education can get thousands in government grants.
Then there is the private sector, which is incredibly generous when it comes to donating time and money to help those in need.
We do a tremendous amount to help the less fortunate.
-
Poverty no, but homelessness, people without medical help(psyhoclogical) living on the streets etc can be legislated away for the most part.
How do you legislate away homeless people with psychological problems?
-
They don't have to be, why is it a fantasy? I am not saying people can have more then others, but there has to be a social floor and extreme poverty and inequality that exists is a stain on a civilized nation.
The US is not only not good but terrible in terms of inequality. There is no reason besides greed.
It is a fantasy because it cannot happen in reality. Like beach bum said in his post, the US does tons for its lower classes. American 'poor' would be upperclass in many other parts world; but doing too much creates a class of government dependant social and economic drains on the rest of us.
The closest we can get to the idyllic scenario you envision are some of the small northern european nations, with tiny, and homogenous, populations, that (for the most part) share the same race, culture and ideology. Such a scenario is simply not feasable in a nation as huge, diverse and complex as the united states. Even when such huge nations do try to embrace full socialism (ussr, china) there is still inevitably mass povery and inequality
-
Don't wary too much, French Foreign Legion can lend brigade or 2 if is needed ;)
"Marche ou crève" ................bad ass, not enough of em, but bad ass raghead killers.
-
How do you legislate away homeless people with psychological problems?
Euthanasia and an incinerator... :-\
-
The people in the red states recieving all that money are urban dwelling democratic voters.
Source or link or gtfo
The people who recieve all that money do not vote republican. I think you are a little out of you element here whork
Of course i am we all are
, its hard for you to comment so much on america and american politics when you do not live here and your actual knowledge of both are pretty limited and show all the characterizations of someone raised on left wing european media when you are discussing your views of 'how things are' in the united states.
Example ?
-
They don't have to be, why is it a fantasy? I am not saying people can have more then others, but there has to be a social floor and extreme poverty and inequality that exists is a stain on a civilized nation.
The US is not only not good but terrible in terms of inequality. There is no reason besides greed.
equality itself is a fantasy. people are not equal. there are literally people that would rather live under a bridge than to get off their ass and do something or give up their booze/drugs.
you may not have experienced this personally, but i have.
those people are not you equals and should not be treated as such.
-
They don't have to be, why is it a fantasy? I am not saying people can have more then others, but there has to be a social floor and extreme poverty and inequality that exists is a stain on a civilized nation.
The US is not only not good but terrible in terms of inequality. There is no reason besides greed.
Stop looking in my pocket, you want to give your money to the poor....God bless you, but leave me the fuck alone!
I don't give what I earn to the lazy and stupid, I'd rather burn it.
-
equality itself is a fantasy. people are not equal. there are literally people that would rather live under a bridge than to get off their ass and do something or give up their booze/drugs.
you may not have experienced this personally, but i have.
those people are not you equals and should not be treated as such.
Jesus, you are going to deep, you mean scumbags? sure lets kill um
Im a bit of an addict (smoke weed at night) and some of these people are sick or traumatized. honestly, I think I just take an opposing position to everyone on here to simply argue and sharpen my wit etc. I honestly agree with you.
I am also trolling a bit.
My cousin is a bum, we have taken him in and he steals a wedding ring, he ends up living in a tent, we take him in for one night until the city can take him, he steals money. We give him a job he steals, he is a chronic drug addict, scumbag but his father beat him mercilessly and his mother a bipolar.His solution is only curable by himself. However, if he cannot I don't think affording him basic living conditions is a bad thing. The trauma inflicted on him might have been to great to ever lead a normal life, hence a safety net. A social floor does exist, I just think it should be bolstered.
-
Euthanasia and an incinerator... :-\
Deportation could be answer, like in the good old days:
-English used penal colony of Botany Bay
-French, "French" Guiana
-Chileans, Easter Island
-Soviets, Siberian gulags
-Nazi plan was Madagascar,but ...Jews didn't like tropical climate :P
-
Its a safety net designed as a temporary measure to catch people when they fall. It was not intended as a means of life long support.