Obama Promises to Dismantle Our Armed Forces(?)

[Twin Fist]

"YouTube has an undated 52-second clip of Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barrack Obama outlining his plans for America’s national defense. Obama’s presentation demonstrates either total naivete about important national security programs or he is just pandering for votes among the extreme left."

See the rest of the story here:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25942

Here is the clip in question:

Highlights:
“I’m the only major candidate to oppose this war from the beginning and as president I will end it.”


“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.”


“I will slow our development of future combat systems.”


Wait......


WUT???

ok, NOT voting for this guy

 

[Big Don]

Bah. at least he isn't promising to stop space based mind control like Kuchinich.

 

[Marginal]

Is axing a missile shield program that still hasn't demonstrated that it has any actual value (meaning, they can't prove it works, they just think it might at some point) really dismantling the military?

I mean, with the other nutty anti missile stuff like the lasers, at least we got better eyeglasses prescriptions out of it even though the lasers are still not effective.

 

[Twin Fist]

thats how you get it to work. You develop it and test it. It doesnt happen overnight.

And with Putin trying to bring the USSR back from the dead, ballistic missile defense is a priority again.

But, i am less concerned that he wants to stop missile defense research than I am that he said “I will slow our development of future combat systems.”

thats a MAJOR statement

 

[Andrew Green]

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

Entire World: $1,200,000,000,000
USA: $583,283,000,000

That is almost as much on military spending as the rest of the world put together spends. I can't see how cutting that budget is such a huge issue.

The EU as a whole spends $304,000,000,000. That is as a whole, and is well above what any other countries are spending, if the US where to cut back to that level don't you think a better use could be found for the extra $280,000,000,000.

 

[Twin Fist]

who's to say what a better use for those funds would be?

I think The reason we have so few casualties is the fact that our systems are superior, our training is superior, and our people are superior.

cut funds and all that changes.

And by the way, what other countries spend doesnt matter in the slightest. it is irrelevant and meaningless.

They spend less, they get crappy armed forces with out-dated equipment and training. We spend more, Ours is top notch.

Not to mention that this might not be the time to cut spending on the military, youknow since WE ARE AT WAR.

and I might add, even if we pull our troops out of Iraq tomorrow, we will still be at war, we just wont be fighting back.

 

[tellner]

*yawn*
Completely predictable.
The Republican Slander Machine and its tools are starting to lie again.

At least come up with a few new ones.

 

[Touch Of Death]

"YouTube has an undated 52-second clip of Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barrack Obama outlining his plans for America’s national defense. Obama’s presentation demonstrates either total naivete about important national security programs or he is just pandering for votes among the extreme left."

See the rest of the story here:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25942

Here is the clip in question:

Highlights:
“I’m the only major candidate to oppose this war from the beginning and as president I will end it.”


“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.”


“I will slow our development of future combat systems.”


Wait......


WUT???

ok, NOT voting for this guy

Its pandering. He won't really be in charge of that end, persay. he will have to get any crazy ideas passed an entire congress and senate. Its called paying lip service.
Sean
sean

 

[Twin Fist]

*yawn*
Completely predictable.
The Republican Slander Machine and its tools are starting to lie again.

At least come up with a few new ones.

Tellner,
it is HIS OWN WORDS

please point our any lies that have been posted either in this thread or in the story i linked to. With proof please. Or make a retraction, please

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Its pandering. He won't really be in charge of that end, persay. he will have to get any crazy ideas passed an entire congress and senate. Its called paying lip service.
Sean
sean

That's the thing everyone forgets, because they are stupid--A candidate will go on and on about "Oh, I'll do this, that and the other", but fail to add "If Congress will let me".

And that's why we have the reactions we get, because everyone remembers the 10% minortiy who think ONE way about things, and the 10% who think the OTHER way about things, but nobody remembers that we always have our usual 80% who.....Don't think.

 

[Twin Fist]

*giggle*

so true. But this empty promise is disturbing.





Tellner,
Still waiting for proof of a lie or a retraction.

 

[Tez3]

who's to say what a better use for those funds would be?

I think The reason we have so few casualties is the fact that our systems are superior, our training is superior, and our people are superior.

cut funds and all that changes.

And by the way, what other countries spend doesnt matter in the slightest. it is irrelevant and meaningless.

They spend less, they get crappy armed forces with out-dated equipment and training. We spend more, Ours is top notch.

Not to mention that this might not be the time to cut spending on the military, youknow since WE ARE AT WAR.

and I might add, even if we pull our troops out of Iraq tomorrow, we will still be at war, we just wont be fighting back.

I'm curious to know what you consider "so few casualties"?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/01/us/01deaths.html

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

 

[Twin Fist]

Tez,
Look at history

Look at WW2
Look at Korea
Look at Vietnam

we have less injuries and deaths from combat than ever. Thats because our equipment and training is top notch.

The US has lost over 3000 troops, in FOUR YEARS

There were battles in WW2 where that many many died in ONE DAY

So no, we dont have many casualties any more. Any person with a working knowledge of the military history will tell you the same thing.

 

[Tez3]

Tez,
Look at history

Look at WW2
Look at Korea
Look at Vietnam

we have less injuries and deaths from combat than ever. Thats because our equipment and training is top notch.

The US has lost over 3000 troops, in FOUR YEARS

There were battles in WW2 where that many many died in ONE DAY

So no, we dont have many casualties any more. Any person with a working knowledge of the military history will tell you the same thing.

Ooh that'll be me then.
I would question that your troops are the best trained though. Not as a criticism but as a matter of fact. Our troops are better trained in urban contact than any other army simply because we spent so long in Northern Ireland. When watching your troops deploy in the towns and cities I cringe as they leave themselves so open. (yes I have a lot of experience in urban warfare)
I think you cannot compare WW2 with Iraq as the war in Iraq is supposed to be over. That's a lot of people being killed after a war. In battle yes many are killed as you said more than 4000 in one day but there aren't supposed to be any battles now, your troops are being picked off as are ours to be fair.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

What date was given which was intended to mark the war's "end"?

It would be wonderful if it were over both in theory and practice but that's the trouble with a war that as far as I know Congress didn't actually "declare" that was committed to before a clear objective for victory was assigned to it.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Ooh that'll be me then.
I would question that your troops are the best trained though. Not as a criticism but as a matter of fact. Our troops are better trained in urban contact than any other army simply because we spent so long in Northern Ireland. When watching your troops deploy in the towns and cities I cringe as they leave themselves so open. (yes I have a lot of experience in urban warfare) .

I can attest to this personally--My State Guard unit has been called from time to time to assist the MA Nat'l Guard's 181st Infantry Battalion prior to its deployments to Iraq, providing "enemies" for them to work against and one of my Sergeants, who 's retired State Police who spent time on their SWAT team, has said the same, and I overheard her advising one of the one-eight-one's senior NCO's on the subject--that they needed to become more familiar with SWAT-style house-to-house/dynamic entry/stacking/long wall-short-wall techniques because in one of the "houses" we used for the MOUT exercise, everybody got "killed" before ANYBODY got out.

That's OK, though, that's what training is for, so you make your mistakes when it DOESN'T count, so that you don't repeat them when it DOES.

 

[Twin Fist]

Ooh that'll be me then.
I would question that your troops are the best trained though. Not as a criticism but as a matter of fact. Our troops are better trained in urban contact than any other army simply because we spent so long in Northern Ireland.

tez,
i agree 100% that the SAS in particular and the british troops in general were better trained in urban warfare When the conflict started. i think the gap is closing now tho, but I will happily still give your guys the nod. British troops are very well trained.

Looking at the whole picture tho, I think in the realm of combined arms conflict, the US's ability to use ground troops + arty + air support is un-equaled

yes, 3000+ is alot of casualties. 3000+ casualties over 4 YEARS is the least bloody war in history

 

[Marginal]

thats how you get it to work. You develop it and test it. It doesnt happen overnight.

Yeah, you can also get viable solar panels to be cheaper via mass production, but nobody's willing to sink cash into something like that.

And with Putin trying to bring the USSR back from the dead, ballistic missile defense is a priority again.

Putin's been saber rattling because of the missile defense instillations.

But, i am less concerned that he wants to stop missile defense research than I am that he said “I will slow our development of future combat systems.”

thats a MAJOR statement

Seems like a fairly empty one in a lot of respects. What future combat systems? The US has a few dozen competing theories on what future combat systems should be as it is. Is he slowing them all? Some of them?

Not to mention, would he actually follow through, or would more information cause him to alter his ideas? I don't really expect that any of the candidates will be pulling out of Iraq the instant they're sworn in. I doubt that other realities in place will be easily dismantled either.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

tez,
i agree 100% that the SAS in particular and the british troops in general were better trained in urban warfare When the conflict started. i think the gap is closing now tho, but I will happily still give your guys the nod. British troops are very well trained.

Oh yes.

Our Master Sergeant actually happens to be former British Royal Marines.( think that's out of the ordinary? Get THIS--his former unit was one of those that marched on the MA State Guard's predecessors( the Minutemen). Now he's a MSG in MASG. How funny is that?)

But he's had more than his share of stories to tell of many British forces and some of their training.

They are all that is said of them. Believe it.

Looking at the whole picture tho, I think in the realm of combined arms conflict, the US's ability to use ground troops + arty + air support is un-equaled

To an extent this is true but our enemies are becoming smarter now to the point they use our general unwillingness to casually sacrifice civilian noncombatants and do their best to force us to fight in just those cramped, urban-warfare conditions where arty and air strikes don't get as many opportunities as they once did.

yes, 3000+ is alot of casualties. 3000+ casualties over 4 YEARS is the least bloody war in history

yeah, 3000, it still sucks to everyone that lost someone, but militarily that was, what, the first 10 minutes of D-Day?

 

[Twin Fist]

yeah, thats about right, D-Day loses were horrific.

"To an extent this is true but our enemies are becoming smarter now to the point they use our general unwillingness to casually sacrifice civilian noncombatants and do their best to force us to fight in just thoose conditions where arty and air strikes don't get as many opportunities as they once did."

Yeah, true, no one said the terrorists were stupid, just cowards. We really did need work on our urban assault skills, glad that they are doing more and more of that now.


Marginal,
Yeah, solar panels. They are cool, but will they stop terrorists? didnt think so. Apples and oranges man. And BTW- i dont think Putin is just saber rattling. I am pretty sure he means it.