quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
Has one ever considered that it is the strategy of the US to destroy it's own equipment? Seems we have been doing that a lot lately.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
Just seems to me that we gave them weapons, and for good cause, to see them give them to the "enemy" (so it appears) to ask for more and thus a vicious cycle. There is also this theory rattling around that since the Pres has downsized the military we don't need the equipment until it is used against us (hint from WWII) so that the complex can make more. Then there is this thing in there that says we are about to surrender our country. I relize it is all appearances, just keep wondering.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
Thanks Alyee I'll have to take a look
I know DS but the cost in the mean time could be a terrible price to pay.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
I look back at our History. After the Revolutionay War we downsized to one Regiment (the 3rd Infantry) to guard our munition stocks following the war. Come the War of 1812 and our initial losses. Then we downsize again, have a few skermishes caused by expansion and we are unprepared for the Civil War. After the Civil War, we downsize back to the regimental system and mostly fight native americans but lose our ability for command and control large formations. Come the Spanish/American War and we were again unprepared followed by downsizeing. Then the Great War. Woefully unprepared. Again, downsize the army and eliminate R&D so that at the beginning of WWII we went to war with the M1906 Springfield including some serious fights. And again we paid. And so on throughout our History. We downsize and we lose our most valuable resource - Our Soldiers. Now we are moving away from the Division and Corps system to a Brigade system. Large Formations are again being pulled away. Training is suffering. R&D is suffering. And so on.
Then there is a cost to the Civilian Population. How many things were created specifically at the behist of the military or by the military. Medical advances (like the cure for some diseases like yellow fever), product advances (like frozen concentrated juices), etc.
So yes, I am concerned. Even our Commanders are getting to be fearful or our current strategy http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_IRAQ?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Back when we were pulling out of the majority of operations in Iraq, it was determined by the bean counters that transporting back all those pieces of equipment would have been a waste of the taxpayer's dollars. Were as selling the hardware to Iraq would generate immediate income. An that ALWAYS looks good to any administration. No one had a problem with us shipping all that stuff over there; nor of not taking it home. So trying to blame any one person, group or organization of people is a silly argument. 'We' as a country made decisions, and 'We' as a nation have to live with those decisions for better or worst. When it turns out to be for the worst, perhaps we learn from the mistakes so we do not make them again.

In light of events, maybe we will do better at picking up our toys and shipping them home when we leave....

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Back when we were pulling out of the majority of operations in Iraq, it was determined by the bean counters that transporting back all those pieces of equipment would have been a waste of the taxpayer's dollars. Were as selling the hardware to Iraq would generate immediate income. An that ALWAYS looks good to any administration. No one had a problem with us shipping all that stuff over there; nor of not taking it home. So trying to blame any one person, group or organization of people is a silly argument. 'We' as a country made decisions, and 'We' as a nation have to live with those decisions for better or worst. When it turns out to be for the worst, perhaps we learn from the mistakes so we do not make them again.

In light of events, maybe we will do better at picking up our toys and shipping them home when we leave....

That and now we are stripping our reserve components of their equipment to replace worn out equipment and for spare parts for the Active Components.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
I look back at our History. After the Revolutionay War we downsized to one Regiment (the 3rd Infantry) to guard our munition stocks following the war. Come the War of 1812 and our initial losses. Then we downsize again, have a few skermishes caused by expansion and we are unprepared for the Civil War. After the Civil War, we downsize back to the regimental system and mostly fight native americans but lose our ability for command and control large formations. Come the Spanish/American War and we were again unprepared followed by downsizeing. Then the Great War. Woefully unprepared. Again, downsize the army and eliminate R&D so that at the beginning of WWII we went to war with the M1906 Springfield including some serious fights. And again we paid. And so on throughout our History. We downsize and we lose our most valuable resource - Our Soldiers. Now we are moving away from the Division and Corps system to a Brigade system. Large Formations are again being pulled away. Training is suffering. R&D is suffering. And so on.
Then there is a cost to the Civilian Population. How many things were created specifically at the behist of the military or by the military. Medical advances (like the cure for some diseases like yellow fever), product advances (like frozen concentrated juices), etc.
So yes, I am concerned. Even our Commanders are getting to be fearful or our current strategy http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_IRAQ?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Why is it that the US is way ahead of the rest of the world (combined?) in defense spending, yet we need to keep spending, spending, spending? I understand not wanting to be caught with our pants down, but that isn't the only other option to continued (and increased) spending. We could pull our troops back to the US and close most of our hundreds and hundreds of foreign military bases. Increase our "reserve" system for those times when we need troops, and scale back our full-time standing army, according to the level of threat.

As much as I don't agree with Obama, on pretty much anything, he's waging war in a new way. It's no longer about the number of boots on the ground, but we are relying more and more on air offense, and drones. That requires fewer boots and reduces the risk of fatalities for us.

But, once we're in a war situation, the absolute worst thing we can do (and Bush was guilty of this, too), is not wage war to win decisively. I know, I know, "Rules of Engagement." Our opponents show they will do anything they can in bringing the fight to our troops. We are not showing we will do the same. "Moral Victories" mean jack shit if you have high losses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

I have no problem with pulling back as long as we keep strategic locations to act as forward operating bases when and hopefully never needed. I'd rather fight on their turf not ours.

As for our reserves, they are being stripped too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
I look back at our History. After the Revolutionay War we downsized to one Regiment (the 3rd Infantry) to guard our munition stocks following the war. Come the War of 1812 and our initial losses. Then we downsize again, have a few skermishes caused by expansion and we are unprepared for the Civil War. After the Civil War, we downsize back to the regimental system and mostly fight native americans but lose our ability for command and control large formations. Come the Spanish/American War and we were again unprepared followed by downsizeing. Then the Great War. Woefully unprepared. Again, downsize the army and eliminate R&D so that at the beginning of WWII we went to war with the M1906 Springfield including some serious fights. And again we paid. And so on throughout our History. We downsize and we lose our most valuable resource - Our Soldiers. Now we are moving away from the Division and Corps system to a Brigade system. Large Formations are again being pulled away. Training is suffering. R&D is suffering. And so on.
Then there is a cost to the Civilian Population. How many things were created specifically at the behist of the military or by the military. Medical advances (like the cure for some diseases like yellow fever), product advances (like frozen concentrated juices), etc.
So yes, I am concerned. Even our Commanders are getting to be fearful or our current strategy http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_IRAQ?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Why is it that the US is way ahead of the rest of the world (combined?) in defense spending, yet we need to keep spending, spending, spending? I understand not wanting to be caught with our pants down, but that isn't the only other option to continued (and increased) spending. We could pull our troops back to the US and close most of our hundreds and hundreds of foreign military bases. Increase our "reserve" system for those times when we need troops, and scale back our full-time standing army, according to the level of threat.

As much as I don't agree with Obama, on pretty much anything, he's waging war in a new way. It's no longer about the number of boots on the ground, but we are relying more and more on air offense, and drones. That requires fewer boots and reduces the risk of fatalities for us.

But, once we're in a war situation, the absolute worst thing we can do (and Bush was guilty of this, too), is not wage war to win decisively. I know, I know, "Rules of Engagement." Our opponents show they will do anything they can in bringing the fight to our troops. We are not showing we will do the same. "Moral Victories" mean jack shit if you have high losses.

I've said, from time to time, that if the U.S. pulled out of Europe and made them pay for their own defense those socialist countries would either collasp or speak Russian.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
I look back at our History. After the Revolutionay War we downsized to one Regiment (the 3rd Infantry) to guard our munition stocks following the war. Come the War of 1812 and our initial losses. Then we downsize again, have a few skermishes caused by expansion and we are unprepared for the Civil War. After the Civil War, we downsize back to the regimental system and mostly fight native americans but lose our ability for command and control large formations. Come the Spanish/American War and we were again unprepared followed by downsizeing. Then the Great War. Woefully unprepared. Again, downsize the army and eliminate R&D so that at the beginning of WWII we went to war with the M1906 Springfield including some serious fights. And again we paid. And so on throughout our History. We downsize and we lose our most valuable resource - Our Soldiers. Now we are moving away from the Division and Corps system to a Brigade system. Large Formations are again being pulled away. Training is suffering. R&D is suffering. And so on.
Then there is a cost to the Civilian Population. How many things were created specifically at the behist of the military or by the military. Medical advances (like the cure for some diseases like yellow fever), product advances (like frozen concentrated juices), etc.
So yes, I am concerned. Even our Commanders are getting to be fearful or our current strategy http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_IRAQ?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Why is it that the US is way ahead of the rest of the world (combined?) in defense spending, yet we need to keep spending, spending, spending? I understand not wanting to be caught with our pants down, but that isn't the only other option to continued (and increased) spending. We could pull our troops back to the US and close most of our hundreds and hundreds of foreign military bases. Increase our "reserve" system for those times when we need troops, and scale back our full-time standing army, according to the level of threat.

As much as I don't agree with Obama, on pretty much anything, he's waging war in a new way. It's no longer about the number of boots on the ground, but we are relying more and more on air offense, and drones. That requires fewer boots and reduces the risk of fatalities for us.

But, once we're in a war situation, the absolute worst thing we can do (and Bush was guilty of this, too), is not wage war to win decisively. I know, I know, "Rules of Engagement." Our opponents show they will do anything they can in bringing the fight to our troops. We are not showing we will do the same. "Moral Victories" mean jack shit if you have high losses.

I've said, from time to time, that if the U.S. pulled out of Europe and made them pay for their own defense those socialist countries would either collasp or speak Russian.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

You are correct but all the US did that Europe didn't...was borrow the money from the monetarists (bankers/fed) and Chinese.

We'll let the great capitalist peasant and his kids (and grand-kids) pay it back while the Europeans get twice the vacation time, live almost 5 years longer and...at 1/2 the price.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

Has one ever considered that it is the strategy of the US to destroy it's own equipment? Seems we have been doing that a lot lately.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

Has one ever considered that it is the strategy of the US to destroy it's own equipment? Seems we have been doing that a lot lately.

It makes sense. Rather than ship worn out equipment back we give it to the mercenary troops in our foreign provinces and then disband the reserve Legions we used to take that region in order to pay for the plebians.

Meanwhile, the strategy was our mercenaries will hold these frontiers for us. Unfortunately, we no longer have a Ceasar and the barbarians have crossed the frontier, driven off the foreign troops we depend on and killed those we brought Pax Americana to, they have taken the cities we conquered and those same barbarians will soon be within our gates with nukes.

I think it will take a new Ceasar and a new strategy, one that brings new meaning to the term "shock and awe" with carpet bombing every barbarian troop center and movement followed by a complete takeover of the area using first line American Legions and use of their oil to pay for our continued good will and protection and administration. The Koreans and their nukes will require the same strategy.

The old world is over. A new world is here and we must evolve to live in it.