Obama ending two-war strategy

by:INDUSTRIAL-MAN     2019-09-27
According to a comment the Pentagon will submit this week, the United States should give up its ability to fight two major ground wars at the same time. S.
Officials said Wednesday.
The White House has announced that President Obama will outline the review publicly.
The president will discuss the vision of military posture with Defense Minister Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey at the Pentagon on Thursday.
The official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said that the strategic review put forward priorities to guide the military towards the future, but \"not all of these proposals are set in stone.
\"The comment sets out the huge changes that could happen in the United StatesS.
The strategy includes withdrawing up to 4,000 troops from Europe and further narrowing the size of the entire ground force, the official said.
The 2012 budget requirement has asked for a reduction of 27,000 soldiers and 20,000 Marines in the next four years, and these figures may increase.
The official said the military would not, as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan, maintain its ability to launch two large-scale conflicts at the same time.
However, the United States is still able to deploy troops and equipment to \"deter the second opponent\" in major ground conflicts \".
S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the military needs to be able to respond quickly to the crisis even if its budget is small.
The official said the report is not expected to require large-scale arms reduction projects.
The official said the review took eight months and was based on the theme of the four-year defense review conducted in 2010.
QDR called for increased cooperation among the various arms, particularly between the Air Force and the Navy.
The Pentagon will make a proposal to continue to allow the United States, the official said. S.
Military \"for a long time
Strike remotely to protect its interests and allies around the world.
\"The review is based on potential restrictions on federal spending and the need to cut the Pentagon budget.
At present, the Pentagon has promised to cut nearly half a trillion dollars in the next decade. if Congress can\'t find a solution to the automatic reduction issued after the settlement, it may cut another half a trillion dollars and fail to reach an agreement on the federal budget.
Geographically, we are lucky.
We are unlikely to be invaded, nor will we soon start a war in the United States.
So, as long as we can maintain our technical advantages, I will not have any problems with this.
We are always told they protect Americans abroad, but know what they are state secrets.
But they acknowledge that oil is a test that protecting it can bring huge profits to oil tycoons.
Why should our taxes be used to provide security for oil barrans who can hire the same Blackwater troops for the safety of our government.
If oil is so expensive, let\'s take hard medicine to protect us and use only what we make.
In the 10 years when there is a serious shortage of oil, we will transform to a greener technology.
Nessiity is the driving force for all inventions, and we spend £ 200 billion a year building wepons in large quantities to fight and protect oil when tht money can and can reduce the country\'s demand for oil
\"Technological advantage \"?
Where do you think most of the cuts will come from?
They will cut many future weapons projects, which means killing a lot of R & D, which gives us a technological advantage.
Where do you think the Internet, satellite technology, computers and nuclear power come from?
The military plan eventually gave birth to the whole industry and led to a technological revolution that changed our way of life.
A weak America will never bring peace.
The weak United States will only incur aggression.
Madmen and dictators around the world will think they can get away with any punishment and millions of American lives will be lost because evil will be allowed to grow!
@ Uzi4u switch to the decaf guy.
Just like I said, as long as we keep the technical edge
That means I\'m not in favor of cutting R & D.
Reduce the strength of some overseas bases, close or backbone crew members, and retire some aging ships from the Navy.
We may have to agree to disagree, but I don\'t think these measures will take the lives of millions of Americans as you suggest. It\'s time.
With the cuts in the rest of the country, you can\'t tell me that there is no waste in the Army, and there is not a lot of waste.
Or, don\'t want to cut anything?
Let the military tax purchases such as PX.
This may be done.
\"Let the military tax goods such as PX\"-interesting.
If you really want to tax something different, how about we only tax internet purchases.
You want them to die, but you spit on them.
How much is your life worth! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Wow, Wilma, you\'re a patriot.
Let me ask you, please be honest with yourself. . .
Would you be excited to meet your favorite movie star or musician?
I bet you will be very excited, won\'t you?
From your comments, I can assume that the American people have brought 6 cents to the American soldiers, and as a thank you, you are hardly as excited as you are to see these heroes.
A real hero, not an idiot for makeup, talking to a camera or singing.
These heroes get up and go to work every day because they know that if any country in the world decides to test our resolve and try to deprive their country of freedom, even life, they may die first, defend their favorite things.
Every American soldier wakes up ready to defend us from any foreign or domestic enemy. . .
However, you may not walk 5 feet out of the way to shake hands or thank others in public (
Could it be awkward?
Or not grateful? )
But I bet you will jump up 5 feet excitedly and skip your favorite musician or movie star in person. . .
I want you to understand yourself.
In my book, you are not a patriot, a liberal enthusiast, or someone who appreciates American men and women who protect you and your family from any foreign or domestic enemy. Check yourself. . . .
Congrats to Wilma! ! !
She solved the budget.
For a long time, those selfish soldiers have not paid sales tax when buying clothes or groceries. Seriously? ? ?
Do you really think the sales tax on military personnel (
Less than 1% of the total population)
Will salary not have any impact on the overall budget?
This is a drop in a very large bucket.
Have you heard the old saying \"think before talking?
It also works for typing. . . . . . . .
By the way, Wilma, I\'m going to buy a huge flat-screen TV and a home entertainment system tomorrow at BX/PX duty free. BOOM! !
All I have to do in the last 24 months is stay away from my wife and two children and spend 18 months. WHAT A DEAL! ! !
Give Peace a ChanceWe did. . .
This is how we ended World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, etc. . . .
No, we ended up in those wars because some dishonest people wanted to sell war materials to make money.
They funded both sides.
War is a hoax. Nothing more. Great idea!
Let\'s put the enemy\'s solution on the silver plate. ? !
Yes, because the next 20 years are not enough, right?
Or how about 100 in some cases.
Become more paranoid. . . .
If we don\'t give all the money to the swindlers of Israel, then maybe we can fight a war.
In fact, we are broke.
Our money has gone to many places in the past 10 years and most of it has gone.
The FBI should hunt down these shit officers who anonymously conceal such information from the media.
What the hell are you talking about? ! ?
Listen to me, most of you have entered two failed wars in the first place, and we have accepted this suggestion.
That\'s what we want, watching us decide not to do it as usual because of propaganda.
There is nothing here to deal with us, no one knows. . . . come on now. . . get a grip.
I think what Terry means is why officials who \"have no right to speak publicly\" speak publicly.
You should learn how to spell \"leak \". But. . . but.
I don\'t think the government can create jobs.
Jobs are created by adventurous entrepreneurs and small businesses.
Now the government is cutting jobs for Americans.
The only solution is to cut more spending and taxes.
Everything will be fine.
Just not the way we want it.
The government can create a job, but the government has no capital.
Money already made in savings, ready for the economy)
The government took money from the economy and used it to make money, so the money changed hands, but it was a wash because the money had entered the economy.
People with savings can improve their economy and productivity (
It\'s not about society)
Jobs are better because the capital they use is beyond the capital that has already entered the economy.
The government can use a lot of spending to stimulate a period of time, but it does not help the whole growth, because there is no new capital investment, because the government doesn\'t have anything to take from someone because the tax is based on income and not savings (capital)
Even in terms of growth, all their spending will be interrupted.
This is totally wrong. . .
Yes, the government collects taxes. Yes, the money is used to pay the wages of employees. .
However, it is completely wrong that you make it sound like there is no production for the service at all.
Government employees contribute to the economy in a variety of ways that are often something private entities do not want to take on because it is not always profitable in a tangible way (
Education, environmental sanitation, food safety, etc).
Simply treating the public sector as tax-sucking and making work waste of time is not accurate at all does show a lack of understanding of exactly how the economy works.
These employees make a living by contributing to the country in various ways, and then spend the money they earn on various commodities, which in turn increases the economy.
@ Myles and kfitton: You are all right in a way.
The government can create jobs, but the biggest problem with jobs, as kfitton says, is that these jobs are usually not taken up by the private sector because they are not profitable.
When the government allocates a lot of money to lead a project, they can hire people in the project, but only for a certain period of time.
Once the money runs out, you have two options to either allocate more money or cut the staff.
Neither of these options is favorable.
The mentality of Republicans (
This explains Bush\'s tax cuts.
By reducing taxes on the rich, they will create more jobs in the private sector.
Ideally this will work perfectly (trickle-down economics)but greed (
In my opinion, this is probably the biggest problem in the world)
This process has been hampered.
Of course, if a rich population bag has more money, he can invest it in his business and start to make higher profits, but what prevents him from leaving the money in
I would like to see more government involvement and private sector involvement.
Do not participate in the way they implement regulations in the company;
I will explain here as much as I can.
Since we are talking about military topics, I will use an example related to this (
But it can be applied to many other things. )
For example, the government has signed a contract for weapons.
They can even allocate start-up loans under certain regulations. for example, all manufacturing is completed in China, and all research and development is handled by domestic engineers, all the resources needed to produce the product are from the country (if possible! )
Once the company has produced x products, they can also guarantee to buy x products.
But the problem is that it is a private company, but they have signed a contract with the government to guarantee the business.
Then, let the company chase profits, hire American workers, and produce American products for the US government for the US armed forces.
If the government invests more money in such investments, it will have a huge return on the economy if there are many sectors.
The military knows that the biggest threat to U. S. defense is one day trying to pay for something and the money is not there.
They won\'t fight if you can\'t afford to pay. . . period!
For more than 50 years, no other army has attacked the country, and soldiers will not fight in some distant countries for free.
If the state is unable to pay for the men and women of its services (
Wages and veterinary benefits)
We will not be able to expand around the world as we are today!
However, uneducated people believe that the biggest debt ever will not affect how we can or cannot protect the country. think USSR.
Trust me, when I said that reforming social welfare would not provide the amount of foreign capital needed to maintain the existing army, we spent 600 billion on defense spending, but we borrowed 1.
The same year 2 trillion.
We used credit cards to fund military and social security and the bill was due!
Wow, people who make sense. ?
The service staff knew this because they don\'t have a vet benifitts coming in right now.
They know that the government is currently unable to deliver on their commitment to military vets or social security, and then there will be rationing, wait and see, if we continue to do so, we will have the bread production line again.
Like Russia Today, they have everything, but they don\'t.
Ronnie Reagan\'s military spending collapsed the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union added debt to military spending and social projects, paying for electricity, water and sewage for everyone.
Health care and retirement while invading countless countries.
Excessive printing by the central bank led to inflation, and the Soviet Union\'s sister countries stopped accepting the weakened Russian currency and the economy collapsed.
When the rich remain rich, the army falls and the people suffer.
It\'s probably about time we did.
For the sake of war, it seems that the reward we get is only physical and mental defects.
Try to imagine a world without limitsS.
Places of Power like Hitler, Tojo, Hussain, etc.
We pay a huge price for peace on Earth.
Unfortunately, diplomacy
Although necessary)
In this world, it is not enough to quell violence and World War.
Steve, I don\'t think I\'m educated.
I don\'t know how you compare Hitler to Saddam, but it proves that they brainwashed you well. Very well. . .
In fact, we have killed more people in the past 10 years than Saddam, haha. Not even close. Spare us. . .
Unfortunately, these things are not good or bad, black and white, this is what the militants fear most, they are completely immature on these topics, more often, from the right.
You\'re a rusty idiot.
If you don\'t appreciate the freedom that those \"physical and mental barriers\" bring to you, move to Red China.
Be respectful even if you don\'t agree with the war.
I bet you don\'t have the courage to go there and risk your life.
It is true that Switzerland has more rights and freedoms than the United States.
They maintained these freedoms even during World War II.
Every 18-year-old joined the Army, served for 2 years, and returned home with a rifle.
No one will attack them for two reasons. 1)
They will not offend anyone, nor will they offend anyone. 2)
For a moment, notice that the whole country has become an army, and if needed, it will go to war, not just some trained people!
In this way, you will be free and safe without causing thousands of disabled people!
Don\'t be afraid, it\'s true that we can have peace and pass on the police journey to another country, like the UK or France, or Switzerland, with more rights and freedoms than the US.
They maintained these freedoms even during World War II.
Every 18-year-old joined the Army, served for 2 years, and returned home with a rifle.
No one will attack them for two reasons. 1)
They will not offend anyone, nor will they offend anyone. 2)
For a moment, notice that the whole country has become an army, and if needed, it will go to war, not just some trained people!
In this way, you will be free and safe without causing thousands of disabled people!
Don\'t be afraid, we can enjoy peace and pass the police tour to another country, like the UK or France, or let the UN do it!
Provide some troops used under the supervision of the United Nations.
Then we are not a bully. peace can be enforced.
Instead of ignoring the UN to invade a country!
I think the most important question is, can the United States protect its territory in war? This two-
War military strategy is about fighting two wars abroad at the same time, and as far as I know, that\'s not why the army was born.
Well, maybe in the days of the Romans, Spartans, and Mongols, they had troops invading and conquering territory, but in the 21 st century it shouldn\'t be the case.
The war has brought money to some people, and it has also brought destruction, loss of life and famine to most people.
This is not a hippie thinking review about peace and love.
This is about the basics of returning to the American army.
To protect yourself.
Most of the war was politically and economically oriented.
They really didn\'t help America protect themselves.
Finally, with regard to the danger of nuclear war, if Iran or Iraq, North Korea, the Taliban or madman in the James Bond film have \"nuclear capabilities\", the sad reality is that the United States is the only country that uses nuclear weapons. Twice.
So, don\'t start a speech about going abroad to stop \"evil doers\" from going nuclear.
I\'m only afraid of people who actually do things, not those who might.
Use the army wisely.
Serve and protect the country.
Alberto, if the United States in World War I and World War IIS.
According to your strategy?
Maybe history is irrelevant, but why not if it is not?
Alan, I think it is not only necessary for the United States to participate in World War I and World War II, but also a factor in changing the rules of the game.
But in the long run, it\'s about Germany, and its allies will rule the world like the ancient Romans.
It\'s not about keeping us and the army in another country in case they go crazy.
Yes, there are dangers everywhere, and the key question is, if the military focus of any country is more concentrated than at home, isn\'t that a serious threat to the state itself?
There\'s a bit more to think about.
50 years ago, all the wars the United States was involved in were directly related to protecting its territory and citizens. After that (
Korean War, Vietnam war, invasion of Panama, Persian Gulf war, invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan)
\"Restoring world order\" and \"preventing the development of weapons of mass destruction\" are the key points.
In my opinion, this deviates from the principle of the founding of the American army.
Yes, it makes me sad.
How long have we not won a war? ! ? !
If you ask me, it\'s bad, especially when you have someone claiming that we \"kicked Vietnam syndrome\" when we\'re in the truth, it\'s still alive, well, people in the community still think, when the truth is, you won the war by bombing the city, flying the flag and occupying the land, much more complicated than that, to be honest, I feel sorry for the fool who couldn\'t do it in 10 years. Amazing really. . .
A lot of people think we won in Iraq just because we took Baghdad and remember like yesterday these kids are soldiers and it\'s okay they are still on the ground as long as we respect them, they knew they were squatting.
It\'s time to listen to those who know. . . .
But we hate common sense! ! !
To be honest, even though the comments are great, we need people with brains and guts to be true to these topics, and I don\'t want to say that, but nationalism takes away the hope of criticism. . . . .
Anyone in the military, not to mention strategy, etc.
Just below this review, someone uses their services as some sort of intellectual gap in reality, and we have a lot of people looking at the world through a tiny little hole, starting at 9/11, it kills us in many different ways, in terms of our relationship with the rest of the world.
If we can recover from this, we will be lucky, so it is good to hear from those who really understand, not 18 years old just recovering from HS
Something to Remember
Well, first of all, I\'m not a Republican and I\'m not a \"flag\" although I\'m an active duty soldier\"
Waving warmongers
I \'ve served there and while I don\'t think there\'s anything worth losing a life, I wouldn\'t say it\'s a complete waste and scoff at their memories.
I will look for positive things that may make the world better because of their sacrifices.
Maybe I am optimistic but I am also a realist who knows that change will not happen in the event of major conflicts and difficulties in the * someone * part-change will not happen without displacement, even lead to conflict/confusion at the scientific level.
Maybe you are the kind of person who calls the American Revolution a \"warmonger\" and the end result is meaningless waste?
Do you think we can get the same results on Twitter and Youtube?
Is there anything worth it for you? Or is there always dark clouds and despair in the Cup?
The last reply was prepared for the thread below me.
\"Iraq is a waste of time.
\"Well, if everyone agrees that the Arab Spring is a positive thing for the region, try to imagine what would happen if Saddam Hussein or his son were still in power.
It won\'t have.
Don\'t just focus on the negative side.
This is a good example of the wrong logic.
Compared with the events in Iraq, modern technology and communications have much greater relations with the Arab Spring.
Yes, every Republican disaster in our foreign policy for the last 30 years has been a misconception, and every victory is the result of the great things Reagan did when he saw them in his dreams and talked to them.
You\'re taking drugs.
The Arab Spring has nothing to do with the overthrow of Saddam, you know.
Bush wasted $3 trillion and 4500 American lives.
Apart from the huge budget deficit you deny right now is the result of that disaster)
If you really believe in your fantasy then tell me why)
The Arab Spring has not started in Iraq (
We don\'t remember that in countries 1500 miles away, different continents have completely different cultures)and b)
If you are a flag
The wave of democracypromotin\' war-
Tough America-
You want you to be such a person, so why don\'t you have the courage to catch up with all the other dictators (
Gaddafi, Mugabe, Kim Jong Il, Iran, Myanmar, etc).
Yes, that\'s what I think.
Yes, cut spending and let the biggest employer I live in fire people so they can suck the right nipples.
Not to mention all other suppliers with military contracts, such as General Mills and basically all others.
The aircraft carrier itself is like a city.
Do you think all supplies are made by the army itself?
Do you understand now?
Man, you don\'t get the point.
The idea is to take home a lot of troops who serve abroad, such as Germany, Japan, etc.
The idea is not to \"fire\" anyone. 20-
There are not many 40,000 troops.
The ability to fight war on the ground is there, but the idea that we can or should spread all our troops around the world like we do now is ridiculous.
Sadly, we already have a president who has recently cut our military spending.
Guess what happened?
The terrorists blew up two of our largest buildings.
Obama wants to repeat Clinton\'s mistake, which is another reason why Obama became a worse president than Bush.
At least Bush failed in trying new things.
Obama failed because he had always wanted to try something that didn\'t work that we had already tried. eh?
blaming Obama. .
How interesting you are to be so naive!
What an unwise opinion.
Do you think military spending has something to do with 911?
This is an intelligent fault that has nothing to do with boots. on-the-Ground expenditure.
Important information about the plot is ignored (mostly by Bush).
This is not a matter of spending money at all.
Bush tried something new? Like what?
Oh yes, tax incentives for the rich and deregulation of the financial sector.
Not even a novel concept, but how disruptive they are.
The man single-
Ten years later, you are eager for another president like him.
KysYikes you have to stay at the lightest place in the pool
Great review tinydog (lol)!
You really add some keen insight and analysis to the conversation.
Back in Fox News, you\'re a dull-headed person.
I think that\'s you.
The deregulation that led to the financial crisis actually came from Clinton.
Time magazine even reported the biggest fault of bank failures.
Guess who checked in behind the actual owner and CEO of the down bank;
That\'s right. your beloved Clinton.
It was his legislation that pushed the banks to actually loosen their controls to the point where they could try to push profits up to collapse. And get this.
After 2006, Bush went to Congress.
Then Democratic control)
Tell them three times that Wall Street is in trouble.
But they can\'t hear it.
Then look, sh * t hit the fan on 2008.
All responsibility now falls on Bush.
I like the fact that all Republicans blame the Democratic president and Democrats blame the Republicans.
The chaos we are in is the result of a lack of financial responsibility on both sides.
There is no one or another.
The White House and Congress have been responsible for the past 20 years.
Each of them
In fact, Bush\'s cuts in personnel and equipment are more than Clinton\'s.
It was during the war.
So you think that if there is a stronger army, it will prevent civilian aircraft from flying into the trade center.
When Clinton cut our troops, he cut the aging army based on Akashic\'s military strategy.
With the change of technology, the function of the Army is also changing.
Obama and Bush are working together on plans to use technology to fight these wars.
Drones and special operations forces
Through your thinking, we should fight these wars with our aging and expanding army, only in a new and creative way.
It\'s long overdue.
No army for terrorists (
Just in case you never noticed).
I used to be an air force counter-terrorism officer.
He did the right thing.
We need a smaller, more agile army.
Not a big cold war monster. Obama did a good job.
Paul predicts that everything will become more expensive once inflation starts.
Even government purchases.
I mean, look at the Dollar Menu and they won\'t go away?
Inflation will end an empire faster than the time you blink.
Ron Paul has just been beaten by the spades. . . . What! ! Too bad.
We have made great achievements in Iraq and Afghanistan.
How will we deal with the extra $2 Trillon plus the interest we will save. ?
Who will protect the security of these countries for China so they can go in and get the oil and mining contracts they need?
We take some out of the failed stimulus plan. everyone knows that it will fail. how about it?
But Obama still wants it. How about that?
George w. Bush launched a rescue and stimulus package.
Obama just continues his policy.
Bush left behind a financial disaster.
Without saving GM jobs, the economy will be even worse.
Microphone thanks for your service, please let it go now so we can squeeze every penny out of the taxpayer. @KM.
This is by far the best review.
Thank you for your briefing: We have no right to invade a sovereign state at first, nor to occupy a second sovereign state.
Two worthless, less-won, US Treasury wars.
4500 of our children were killed/32000 disabled.
If hell really exists
Dick Cheney and his puppet GWBAmen.
If there is not that much money on the defense contract, it is not even a problem.
It is clear that the American people do not support the consumption that is happening in our economy and society.
However, our government does not represent us, does not listen to us, and continues to serve our own interests in another way. STOP ALL WARS.
Vote for peace to Ron Paul
Yes, because once Ron Paul is elected, World Peace will collapse --out.
I really hope that Paul\'s followers will think a little bit.
Isolationism does not work. . .
We tried it after World War I to see what happened?
If we leave troops in Europe, we can stop Hitler.
This is another bad idea for the Obama administration.
A strong army is the guarantee of American security, the guarantee of people\'s employment, the guarantee of company operation, and the leader of the world.
If you want to save money, reduce government corruption and excessive spending on parties, travel, etc. . . .
Can you tell me why we are in Iraq?
Yes, war is good.
Speak like real Republican hawks
Do you have a son, Hawk?
I\'m always surprised when people like you try to talk.
You enjoy the fact that you can wake up every day in relatively safe situations without realizing that the only reason you are as safe as you are is because we are an absolutely difficult country to attack.
Reduce our army to one.
Dramatic action puts the whole country at risk and puts the world one step closer to the use of weapons of mass destruction.
If we cannot operate in two theaters during World War II, it is likely that we have been conquered by the Japanese or Germans-who are very close to world domination.
If we have been so restricted in recent years, the cold war between us and the Soviet Union may not be so cold at all.
The moral of the story is that maybe you should try to think before you try to talk.
I remember that at the beginning of World War II, we were not able to fight two wars, but soon mobilized our industry and our population to war.
In fact, before the Pearl Harbor incident, the United States had been pursuing an absolute policy of isolation.
If you think fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan makes you safer, you\'re an idiot.
Study a little more history.
Much of our security is due to geographical location, rather than invading the country at will and trying to impose democracy.
Cancel Bush\'s tax cuts.
It is not difficult to find that money is needed to run the world\'s top currency.
Du di agreed very much.
Keep weapons items.
No one will notice the loss of another 87,000 unemployed Americans or taxes.
After all, we need to cut our troops. (
The total force is now smaller than when I joined the Army in 1983. )
Whatever your faith is, it\'s foolish to cut military power when the Earth is so chaotic.
Nuclear weapons are not an option, as everyone knows.
Because there will be no retaliatory blow, it has only been successful once.
We can\'t just say \"we\'re sorry to keep the world safe and make everyone friends now\", North Korea is an unknown Iranian Pakistan.
We leave these areas to our own demise, and we give them strategic advantages to strengthen areas that may stop shipping and lead to worse conditions.
You guys are crazy, they are cutting ground troops, it\'s a good thing because fighting ground war is old school and people lose a lot of lives, we can even take a country out without moving, we have the most aircraft carriers in the world, we have the largest air force, we no longer need troops or Marines on the ground.
Not being able to fight a war on two fronts will be the nemisis of America\'s advance.
This move to weaken the army is based on the fact that our officially elected politicians do not have the courage to reform the rights program, and decided to cut the content fruit they mistakenly thought was \"low \". .
In the absence of that commitment, they chose to cut a government area that is vital to our continued status as a world power.
There are areas in the world where we do need to maintain a military presence, not because they must agree with what we need to be there, but because we need to be there.
Korea is a good example.
Our ally, Japan, wants us to help prepare the region to intervene quickly in this fragile relationship with North Korea.
In Europe, the spectre of the rising Russian nuclear again.
In the Middle East and North Africa, we still have a vested interest in curbing the prospect of extremist terrorism.
In particular, Iran, which has nuclear weapons, will hinder any progress we have made in Iraq.
The reason why we have succeeded in the past is because we have the ability to defend our interests abroad.
The basic concept of our status as a superpower will never change, and the attempts and real methods to enforce our permanent representative abroad will not change. .
When other countries wish to act on their own behalf, they are not necessarily interested in acting for our benefit, and the hostile states will always seek ways to take advantage of any apparent weakness.
With the reduction in the size of our troops and with the reduction in our combat capabilities, this interest is expected to increase and corresponding attack attempts are made.
Although we have different opinions, I doubt that our desire to reduce our military capacity will threaten our national sovereignty.
Dude, call the phone on duty.
Article 8 of the Constitution says \"Congress has the right\", but Article 1 does not declare war. . . declare War\".
Therefore, any \"war\" action is illegal under the Constitution, which is better than any illegal federal law.
Please come back when you finish any medication you are taking.
Maybe you missed typing here?
Congress has the constitutional power to declare war. . . .
You said war was illegal. . . (
In some cases, just as our Congress did not declare war.
Look at Obama\'s invasion of Libya. ])
I can\'t believe you\'re still thinking about the old school. we don\'t need ground troops anymore. it doesn\'t make sense. we have drones, planes, ships, missiles, nuclear weapons, and all the other things we can hit quickly from a distance.
Yall must have forgotten this last year, and the United States intends to purchase a total of 2,443 aircraft for an estimated $323 billion, making it the most expensive defense plan ever. [12]
US Air Force (USAF)
Budget figures for 2010 show that the war is changing, and the United States is changing to stay ahead.
Personally, I think you played too many adventure games.
This has become a reality for you. What a pity. Hey Kevin.
You stupid sir.
How do you stick to your position?
You need Mr. ground force.
Anyone in uniform knows this for at least a day.
So, don\'t try to comment on things you don\'t know.
I agree with your first sentence, but do not necessarily agree with your second sentence.
This is a mistake.
However, it is not directly driven by politics as the top Pentagon officials do.
The move is because the Pentagon loves high-tech warfare and denies the need for ground troops to engage in conflict.
If the budget is cut by political orders, this generation of military brass will choose the drone to hit manpower in order.
I don\'t understand why conservatives think rights are our evil.
There are many reasons for our budget problem, but one problem can be pointed out separately.
While the poor and middle class pay the same annual salary as in history-the rich pay far less than historically. That\'s a fact.
Why Do Conservatives think that a hard-working middle class can do less with their wages than the same person ten, 20 or 50 years ago;
But in the same period of comparison, the rich can do more with their wages.
Why does the bricklayer\'s salary remain the same relative to the standard of living, while the wages of doctors, lawyers, CEOs and other business executives remain the same (
Not to mention baseball players, actors and other artists)
Three times more than living standards.
When you\'re a liberal like me talking about income distribution, that\'s the gap we\'re talking about.
It has nothing to do with socialism, and has nothing to do with the defects of our economic capitalist structure;
This trend is not a positive attribute (
Even for the rich
This is a fatal mechanical failure that will destroy our country if not repaired.
At the same time, the army should strike a balance between ground forces and technical industry work. Well said Ed!
Okay man, we don\'t need to take Muma Gaddafi for a few trillion pounds, do we?
What does that mean?
If our leaders take responsible action, we will be able to check our enemies at any time without spending the trillions of dollars we have done in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 10 years.
@ KamActually the only reason for Libya\'s success is because there is enough population to stand up and fight and bear the weight of ground forces. You know. .
Like their prediction of Iraq.
Good try though.
You don\'t understand what I mean.
This prediction is correct for Syria, because it is based on the real facts collected by the intelligence services, and our leaders act responsibly and do what is needed to deal with the situation at hand.
For Iraq, first of all, it was an unnecessary war, and then all the facts behind the intentions of the war were fabricated, when our leaders did not take the right action.
War is a big deal. it involves a lot of life. we should never intervene based on wrong predictions.
This is the loveliest thing when people who don\'t know Jack have objections to the Army because of ignorance.
Americans cry for what these wars have done to them.
What did they give up?
Except for a small part that most people don\'t have.
Oh, the war cost a lot of money, and so is maintaining a huge federal government, but hey, it\'s cool, and what can you give me. Good comment.
Those who don\'t sacrifice anything and don\'t know what the service means put forward a lot of opinions.
The war in Iraq has affected more than 1% of the American population. . .
99% of Americans do not contribute to this, but they certainly have a lot to say.
Know what your country has done to protect you from such terrible things that you won\'t even leave your house if you really know. . .
More importantly, close your stupid mouth unless you get involved.
Yes, I am very grateful to us for being protected from those invading Iraqis who are about to take over Nebraska. Agreed.
We have not suffered as much food and gas shortages as in previous generations.
No draft.
Our tires still have rubber, everything we have is metal, we don\'t have to sell war bonds to pay for bullets, food and equipment.
From the perspective of daily life, most wars are nothing more than news reports.
But what I want to say is that this war has affected more than 1% people.
Maybe it\'s because I live and work in two separate military towns, but I have a lot of friends in one war or another (both)
Someone was injured or killed in action.
Our military operations have affected our entire country, so your argument is completely invalid.
It doesn\'t matter if someone is serving, it\'s important if they\'re looking for the truth.
The war in Iraq is carried out by forging intelligence, a waste of time, and will only reduce the status of the United States in the world.
I have only respect for a man or woman who risked his life to serve the country, but it is completely wrong to say what you have done.
A person\'s point of view should not be more important just because of uniform, it should only be more important if it is true.
I fully support our soldiers, but you two are idiots.
Should a male gynecologist shut his mouth because he never gave birth?
Should a working politician make a decision to run the country because he did not serve, dig ditches or work in McyDs?
Shouldn\'t citizens vote because they\'re not politicians or political analysts?
Speaking out what we think is an important part of being an American and part of what \"those who serve\" should be protected.
Overcome by yourself.
Kick your soap box.
No contribution 99%?
Haha, what do you know about the taxes that fund the war?
Yes, we need to go to Afghanistan.
We need more effort than before.
But Iraq is nothing.
The threat to the American people is smaller than that of Iran or Afghanistan.
This is an incredibly stupid decision based on old intelligence: not the knowledge that the ground Inspector currently has.
Yes, it has cost us a lot, it has cost our defense budget a lot, it has cost our economy a lot, it has cost the Iraqi people a lot.
In the definition of defending the country, however, it is nothing.
Daniel sounds great, but why not help unemployment with the private sector.
Oh wait, the president is already trying to do that, and other Republicans are blocking it without Boehner.
I have an idea for us to take over another country on a camel ride, a country without shoes, poverty and despair, to show the world that our army is still the most powerful.
While we are working hard, under all supervision, we should continue to help Communist China succeed on the path we originally intended to go but have now failed.
Go find Ron Paul, or we\'ll keep holding back.
What an ignorant comment of a typical free bleeding heart fool.
Your explanation of the incident and our safety are embarrassing, you worthless joke.
It may sound stupid, but there are a lot of reasons.
If it weren\'t for oil, we wouldn\'t be in the Middle East.
If our government doesn\'t listen to the big oil lobbyists anymore, America\'s ingenuity can free us from dependence on oil.
Why, oh, why did we run to Wal-Mart to give China the money we \'ve made so hard?
If we had to deal with them militarily, we would have known that we had funded troops against us.
Fans of Ron Paul are not liberals.
Sbk, when you are in this mindset, anyone who is against your point of view is a \"liberal \".
Of course, let\'s scale down the military so that we can give more help to those who don\'t want to work.
This is not a job;
So close your pretty face.
This is another one. don\'t talk about it if you don\'t know.
You clearly don\'t know anything about the plight of the poor in America.
You don\'t know anything about the feeling of being raised into poor people in American cities.
\"Walk a Mile in shoes.
\"Proaganda Page peeps: go top secret above for the latest news?
Peek at the publicity page: typical latest news, go to the top secret above!
The military will cut spendingand middle-class jobs (
You can bet there\'s no elite or senior.
Rank officer position will be canceled)
At the same time, defense contractors continue to be standard by taxpayer standards.
When will Americans have enough rubbish?
If you think the police will not be cut, you are a fool. Oh. . .
Aren\'t the officers middle class?
Pay, special pay and benefits make them richer.
They are also getting a raise. Oh, yeah. . .
Isn\'t the general paid more than the president of the United States?
In fact, I know that the air force is very selective when it receives new officers, which they call \"force shaping \".
\"There was a time when any joe \'schmo could walk into the recruitment office with a college degree and enter the armed forces as a lieutenant, a decent salary position.
Now, it\'s not true, maybe it\'s the case for the Army and the Marines, but for the most part, they\'re just being educated by new officers to fill a certain role (
Engineer, legal, financial management, etc. ).
They are cutting jobs with higher pay and are more interested in keeping the ranks of soldiers with lower pay.
95% of military officers are middle class.
Don\'t talk about things you don\'t know anything about.
The defense industry has created a large number of engineering, manufacturing, contracts and other skilled jobs.
This is exactly what the economy needs.
In addition, our ability to fight two wars at the same time allowed us to win the second world war and had a comprehensive economic boost.
Obama should put the military budget aside because it is one of the few legal functions of the federal government.
So when I was reviewing the course materials of the Air Combat Academy, I was shocked that the teachers have been highlighting the view that a strong economy is essential to national security.
Therefore, the purchase of increasing the speed of currency circulation (
How often does it change hands)
Greater growth than the purchase and expenditure of long-term durable goods.
Life expectancy will be over ten years, which will be good.
Most military Capital expenditures fall into this category.
From carry-on weapons to aircraft carriers, you\'re all thinking about buying with life expectancy measured over decades.
Thus, while military procurement does contribute to the economy to some extent (
And necessary (
Stop imposing pet programs on the military to appease local manufacturers! ))
Consumer spending has played a bigger role in promoting economic growth and making the country stronger.
So for the sake of the economy, the idea that we have to keep spending as militarily is exaggerated.
Despite the massive integration of the defense industry in the post-80 s and post-90 S, the country remains strong with economic growth.
First, according to the government, it\'s cheaper to have contractors do a lot of the work the military has done.
I\'m not sure if I agree with them, but that\'s their day.
This is to some extent related to the infrastructure and training required.
Second, there will usually be a lot of training for officers, and yes, they will be fired like everyone else.
You can\'t cut 27,000 troops when you leave the leadership.
Some will retire and others will be transferred to other positions.
The army will provide bonuses for early retirement, and more people will retire.
But they will maintain a certain percentage of officers and soldiers.
We\'re going to invade Iran.
I think it\'s about 4 trillion.
Of course, we can\'t raise taxes to pay, so let\'s keep borrowing money.
When the US economy collapses, China will buy everything at a low price and then start hiring Americans.
For a communist regime, they may be working at the minimum wage, but at least the United States will be strong again, even as a hegemonic puppet country of a new world power.
Long live Republican militarism!
Thank you to Barack Obama.
It is outrageous to blame the current president for all the responsibility.
Blame across many governments for not being a partisan child.
I believe China already has more strongholds in our country than we know.
Just like we defeated Japan in World War II, they surpassed US and became an important economy.
Taiwan defeated them not because China is the dominant factor, but because of cheap labor.
China is just waiting.
I served in Iraq for 27 years until 09 and I thought they would show up when we were busy in Iraq but they didn\'t.
As the Japanese showed at Pearl Harbor, timing is the key (
The timing is not good, just because 4 aircraft carriers did not break down as expected).
China is Sea now-
An analyst believes that the pilot aircraft carrier will not be able to pilot until the second half of the decade. . .
Now they say it won\'t have a plane until then, but can I prove they were wrong before?
Iran, which has nuclear weapons and \"dirty bombs\" capabilities, also needs to be dealt.
You\'re an idiot, sir.
Our country has more debt than ours. . . . .
Open a book or new label and research.
Don\'t be so ignorant.
China invests most of its money in US Treasury bonds. . . .
This is very different from how it happened.
Get a small business loan or ownership loan on your car.
You want to blame Obama for our debt, and Reagan is the one who started a massive tax cut that has been going on and on, leading to this pile of debt.
This is the first time you saw him crazy.
The Defense Agency will not allow this to happen.
Eisenhower warned us 60 years ago. Smart man.
It\'s nice to see some of the people here remember the important things. LOL.
What defense agency?
Most of them are closed.
We only have Boeing aircraft manufacturers now.
We have angered the EU\'s Northrup/EADS on the KC45 agreement, so if they surge in aircraft production in a major conflict, we will be robbed blindly.
In addition, Boeing has just announced that it will close one of the four factories, although it promises to provide job opportunities for the KC45 contract it steals.
Politicians fouled because we were involved. . .
I have been in service for 27 years in 09 and am glad I retired because our army is at a major weakness.
I pray that the next political foul will not let me go back.
Slow down everyone. . .
It\'s not just about the army.
This is a huge deficit, adding trillions of dollars a year to the U. S. debt burden.
At some point, the country cannot afford not only health care or old age security. . . .
But the shrinking Army will also disappear.
For me, there needs to be a massive restructuring at the top to set the 1 budget and financing target.
The state can afford it. .
That is, taxpayers and 2.
In the best interests of the same taxpayer. . . .
What is America?
The people are right. . . We the people. . . .
Yes, I think this country should be alert to China. . definitely.
We should never return to the era before 1941.
It is essential to keep alive. . . . .
But somewhere there must be a politician with common sense to solve the problem of being broken, and that is the place to be willing to accept the departure of Eisenson and John Kennedy. . . . .
SignedA said that Canada \"has gained international hegemony with unprecedented populist democracy.
But the pursuit of power is not a goal of winning public enthusiasm, unless it is in the event that the public\'s sense of domestic well-being is suddenly threatened or challenged --being.
Economic selfdenial (
Defense spending)
Human sacrifice (
Even casualties among pro soldiers)
What these efforts require is inconsistent with the instinct of democracy.
Democracy is detrimental to the mobilization of the Empire.
-Zbigniew Brzezinski, Big Board, 1997 \"I learned a lot from my doctorBrzezinski.
\"Barack Obama, 2007 I voted for Obama.
Reduce the size of the Army.
A fat pig full of belly.
Thank you, BarackAnd. you\'re a naive liberal. . .
You don\'t know what you want.
It\'s embarrassing.
Don\'t get angry because you work at Shell station and are not qualified to join the service, how does he wait for election years to attend?
This is Jimmy Carter\'s government.
Well, they probably don\'t have a choice like budget cuts.
I think we can do it step by step.
Improve our ability to fight a war and let them end quickly.
The war is over soon, as this is what our army is good at: the application of rapid overwhelming power (
Not numbers, we run under the \"quality> quantity\" method)
The problem is to use a force designed to destroy the enemy to carry out the occupation task.
It just doesn\'t work. Why not?
We have done it over and over again. . .
The name of a Korean couple in World War II. . .
Rather than \"it doesn\'t work\", it\'s a long, unexpected and unpredictable burden of national debt to use the US Army as an occupying force.
A good example recently is Iraq.
About three weeks later, the first American troops entered Baghdad.
Today, eight years later, we are gone.
Unfortunately, the need for occupation was linked to the decision to invade, something that ramsfeld ignored.
He pushed the equation backwards, thinking that he could determine the assets needed for the occupation based on the assets needed for the invasion.
I think it makes sense for a bean counter, but there are very few things that work so logically in armed conflict.
It depends on what you cut and where you are.
The United States could have sold the F117 to Israel, not sealed.
I agree to reduce nuclear weapons.
Hummer and MRAPs are sold to Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia.
Sell 3 submarines you want to cut to South Korea or the UK.
Make money and sell with what you are cutting.
Countries that buy these products still need the United States to provide services and maintenance for them at a certain price.
So what do they do when they decide it\'s time to have another war with Iran or North Korea?
Just say \"Oh well, use nuclear weapons, they \'ve been lying down for a while and we should make sure they\'re still working.
\"I hate these people.
That means we can only get involved in the necessary war.
Really, nuclear weapons?
Is this a serious question?
Garbage hits more meaningless garbage from the right.
There is no solution, no respect for any Democratic president, and no responsibility for their actions.
I would like to know that when you pay Obama to comment, the responder will pop up and I\'m guessing you won\'t start early.
What got us into the war was TedDemocrats.
Their actions and policies laid the foundation for the war.
This is our history. . . . read it. . . . learn it. . . . respect it.
Have a good day, really?
Did Demus bring us into Iraq?
There is a fairly Republican government that has pushed the process forward and is doing very well.
I support a strong army and I am confused about the ability to narrow down two major wars.
Now this is a matter of fiscal reality, but perhaps our recent history shows that having this ability is too difficult for some itchy politicians and senior officials who trigger their fingers.
But please don\'t pin it on the \"Democratic Party\" and change the history.
There are a lot of freight trains too, but let\'s not forget who the conductor is and who is driving the engine and directing the track.
This is all about the Hawks of the Republican Party. Try again. Sure. . .
Libs/dems respect Bush very much. You kidding me?
You don\'t even know what this review and process means. @ mc1Agree.
Many people on both sides have found us.
I would like to know if the issue of two wars would be better resolved by removing most of the forces in Europe but maintaining the concept of two wars.
After all, European troops were there during the Cold War to deal with the Soviet threat that no longer existed.
The Russians are no longer deployed in Eastern European countries, and at this time there does not seem to be the ability of the Soviet Union to cause the same problems 30 years ago.
People often forget the lesson of history that war was won by reasonable economic and military forces.
Our excessive consumption and economic weakness put national security at risk.
These two wars are the main reason for our financial collapse.
Our government needs to focus on bringing jobs back to the United States, especially in key industries, and to make a more accurate assessment of the level of military spending.
I don\'t think the cuts proposed by Obama are important enough. .
At the moment, China is funding our military operations, which I don\'t think will last long.
Agree with what you said, but these ideas about cutting the military budget were put forward by Penagon instead of Obama.
I\'m not a fan of Obama on domestic issues, but Hillary and the Pentagon have kept him quiet on foreign policy issues.
The Pentagon review was an effort they made before the national budget cuts debate.
The main reason for our financial collapse?
I don\'t agree. . .
Finger pointing anywhere else except one place. Yourselves.
The American people, your debt is beyond your wildest dreams. . .
Be responsible for your actions.
Obviously, you didn\'t keep up.
China has provided little money for our two wars and they have not done so for several years.
Japan, on the other hand.
Probably in 2012, Japan will have more US foreign debt than China.
Sorry, you made a mistake.
China is the largest foreign holder of US Treasury bonds. you can check it here.
Have we cut defense spending but allowed people to live on welfare or government aid?
When there are legal citizens who can use this money to help college, why should we give tax to illegal foreigners?
When there are homeless American citizens, why do we accept refugees and place them in government-paid homes and communities?
When hungry Americans, why do we give food aid to foreign countries? ?
But our beloved leader wants to focus on cutting defense spending. . . . . . . . .
Try to use this to watch the whole picture. Ummmm. . .
So what you\'re saying isObama the U. S.
A did not do these things?
Wow, he\'s really a socialist except for the Americans.
Thank you very much for the \"full picture \"!
How enlightening! ! ! Exactly.
Of course, we need to cut our defense budget.
The United States accounts for more than 40% of world defense spending.
We spent a lot more of the five countries on the list, three of which are our allies.
There is such a myth about how China has become a world military power.
However, we spend five times as much on defense as they do, twice as much as they do on GDP.
Because Obama needs votes from these donors, no one who wants to cut America\'s bloated military budget will get my vote.
We are still paying for military construction and spending during the Cold War.
Obama did not give these people benefits. . . .
2000 was done by Bush and the Republicans.
2006 their irresponsible policies.
Ted: are these comments written for you or as part of the work and you have to create them?
What will you do for the troops that go home?
The vet is homeless now?
Where is their job?
What better way to show the world that we are no longer the most powerful country in the world.
If the drug cartels continue to escalate, what about redeploying the border.
I agreed to take them home.
But don\'t make it a right wing thing.
Let\'s do it because it\'s right.
Let\'s stop militarizing money to other countries and spend it on the right people/equipment, which will make us strong at the same time as \"cutting expenses\"backs.
\"Hell, we might feed more Americans sitting there --
The dorm is expecting handouts because of their presence.
Living on welfare?
Well, create some work for these people that they can rely on.
The problem is that part-time jobs they can find are often not paid enough. . .
As a result, they continue to carry out the project and can afford food and housing.
In addition, we have spent too much on defense, health insurance and Social Security.
We have spent too much money on killing foreigners rather than helping our own people.
Here\'s a fancy idea-how about not having any war in the first place? ! !
Still in Dorothy, Kansas. . .
We can give each other gum and ride on the Rainbow all day and we can all be friends!
Good luck to you.
If you really go to war and win, it\'s a fancy idea, then this country is now the territory of the United States!
Just like the wars of the past, the lost country will pay compensation to the winner, and the American people will not pay!
PS invasion of Iraq did not serve our defense, Afgan was occupied within a week and then we should leave with their drug money. the end!
When the next nation spends 580 billion less on defense than we do, I\'m starting to think we might overspend a bit. . . . .
Maybe we don\'t need every plane, every ship.
Why not be smart and smart without our money instead of having an unlimited budget? ?
This really seems to upset those who call Obama a warmonger.
What are they going to do now?
I\'m sure they will come up with something. . .
Maybe call him a racist or something.
His mentor is Pastor Wright. . . . . . .
Just said in racist comments. . . . .
I want to receive Catholic service from gay people.
Pedophile makes all those who attend these services gaypedophiles?
Pastor Wright\'s nonsense has been old for a long time and is dead, so let it rest.
Or do you have nothing substantive and objective to criticize the president?
The title of this article is a bit misleading.
This is a comment from the Pentagon that Obama hasn\'t seen yet.
Based on past behavior, he may agree with the Pentagon\'s proposal while only making modest changes.
This is the best idea so far, and we are looking at cutting the spending of the CIA and other intelligence services.
It was great for us after 90 s, at least before 9/11 I wasn\'t excited about it either,, the cuts and cuts made to correct national debt come from the same as a national security issue.
Unfortunately, over the past 12 years, our \"spendaholic\" behavior has plagued us again and has limited our choices.
In addition to making tough cuts, the army is also worried about how to maintain a combat advantage after the withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014.
We can\'t repeat.
During the Carter administration, the Vietnamese army was poorly trained and equipped.
Can you confirm that the weakness of the military is a direct result of the specific policy issued by President Carter?
This is not the result of a long, unpopular anti-American War. war sentiment?
And what negative impact will the shortage of thos bring to the United States? No problem, M. D.
I was called up at the end of the Vietnam War and became an officer on 1979.
The policies adopted by the Carter government, especially those that are called human rights with civilians, are very bad.
The secretary of his army thinks there is no inappropriate place.
There was a man in my unit who was found guilty in a military court and we had to put up with his bad attitude (
Instead of leaving his bunk, he stays in the barracks, not training, etc. )
Because SedArmy\'s policy is to be pampered, not disciplined.
Due to the budget constraints imposed by the President, the training opportunities are limited, which is also evident in my forces, which are the class assets of the xviii abn Corps.
Due to these military problems, the United States is seen as a \"paper tiger\" by countries such as Iran, who seized our embassy and held our diplomats hostage.
When Reagan became president, the first thing that happened was to implement administrative emissions that were easier to manage.
We are suddenly allowed to get rid of drug addicts and alcohol drinkers, which is like a breeze of morale (
In the army of officers and cadets).
The equipment was slowly improved. By 1982, the training slogan of our brigade was \"combat training like you \".
This attitude never appeared during the Carter administration.
It\'s hard to explain to people who h
Custom message
Chat Online 编辑模式下无法使用
Chat Online inputting...