are the dems gonna cut the military?

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by mitch_mckee

You constantly blame the US for every ill. This happens in nearly every single thread. I could go back and repost your nonsense but I just ate.

I don't blame anyone to correct your statement. I do however, think that all of our problems can't be blamed on one thing. Which is opposite of you, you shift all your blame to the liberals, so really this is a case of the melting pot calling the kettle black.

[mitch_mckee]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

I don't blame anyone to correct your statement. I do however, think that all of our problems can't be blamed on one thing. Which is opposite of you, you shift all your blame to the liberals, so really this is a case of the melting pot calling the kettle black.

You blame America in every thread.

Yes, most of our problems can be traced to neo-liberals.

Oh, by the way, do you actually OWN any guns? I can't recall seeing you post anything about a gun either question or answer.

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by mitch_mckee

You blame America in every thread.

Yes, most of our problems can be traced to neo-liberals.

Oh, by the way, do you actually OWN any guns? I can't recall seeing you post anything about a gun either question or answer.

handguns and assault rifles, and next month I am going to the gun show to buy my first Mosin and probably a 12ga, mossy 500 tactical. I go to the range about once a week and can peg a human sized target at 25 yards with just about any hand gun. I can't always get bullseyes, but I can always hit my target. With my rifles I can peg human-sized targets from about 75 yards almost always, and 100 yards 75% of the time w/ just iron sights. I am getting better each week too.

Mitch, I don't blame anyone in general other than the sides of our government and the people who spread tons of misinformation, be it citizen or media, but ultimately I hold everyone accountable for their own actions as individuals. You generalize everything I say and then twist it to make yourself sound better, and then you result to name calling when anyone proves you wrong or asks for you to validate anything you say.

Actually go back and read any of my posts, and if you really have in question what I am saying you can easily just PM me any questions and i will honestly answer them. Otherwise, I say just keep the thread on topic about the Military downsizing, which has been happening for quite some time now.

[mitch_mckee]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

handguns and assault rifles, and next month I am going to the gun show to buy my first Mosin and probably a 12ga, mossy 500 tactical. I go to the range about once a week and can peg a human sized target at 25 yards with just about any hand gun. I can't always get bullseyes, but I can always hit my target. With my rifles I can peg human-sized targets from about 75 yards almost always, and 100 yards 75% of the time w/ just iron sights. I am getting better each week too.

Mitch, I don't blame anyone in general other than the sides of our government and the people who spread tons of misinformation, be it citizen or media, but ultimately I hold everyone accountable for their own actions as individuals. You generalize everything I say and then twist it to make yourself sound better, and then you result to name calling when anyone proves you wrong or asks for you to validate anything you say.

Actually go back and read any of my posts, and if you really have in question what I am saying you can easily just PM me any questions and i will honestly answer them. Otherwise, I say just keep the thread on topic about the Military downsizing, which has been happening for quite some time now.

So far, i've yet to be wrong about you.

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by mitch_mckee

So far, i've yet to be wrong about you.

Quoted for untruth, but I have been right about you mostly. You sit back and snipe and never validate any of your points other than it must be the neoliberals.

However, I will stop feeding the trolls. This thread has gone no where and should probably just be closed now.

[CrazyIvan]

A little question:

If we are worried about the Dems or Liberals going socialist or coming door to door to take our rights...what makes you think they are going to cut the military?

Wouldn't they need a big, strong military to take on such an endeavor of opressing US civilians?

[mitch_mckee]

Originally Posted by CrazyIvan

A little question:

If we are worried about the Dems or Liberals going socialist or coming door to door to take our rights...what makes you think they are going to cut the military?

Wouldn't they need a big, strong military to take on such an endeavor of opressing US civilians?

Demo-rats cut the military the way dogs scratch fleas. They can't help themselves.

[TheWanderingMind]

You know, it doesn't seem to make much difference who's in office... The military always takes it in the rear. When the democrats are in, you fight over #2 pencils, but your housing gets upgraded and military healthcare improves. When the republicans are in, you've got plenty of pencils, but you live in substandard quarters and fight for medical care. Either way, you get tired of being a "peace dividend." All the promises they made to retirees don't mean squat, and the active force gets to the point they resent you using their facilities. Military healthcare is the worst I've ever seen it, and the base housing is being "privatized" so you have to lease it and jump to the tune of a civilian housing manager, who's not about to spend money on your housing.

They tried to close the libraries on our Air Training Command bases a year or so back so that the money could go to the forces in Iraq. A bunch of us wrote Congress, the First Lady and etc., and managed to squelch the idea. But it's symptomatic of the money crunch Congress - both houses - Republican and Democrat alike - have put the services in. Not to mention our "enlightened" military leadership killing off programs so they can get their "look-good, go-fast" machines.

The A-10 is a wonderful ground attack aircraft, best in the world. But who wants to get down and play in the mud when they can zoom around the skies in a pointy-nosed go-fast machine? Instead of keeping the A-10 line open, they made more F-16s! We need a medium-sized, loiter-capable "bomb truck" bomber for supporting the troops on the ground. There doesn't seem to be any interest on the part of senior Air Force leadership in providing such. They either send a flight of F-16s with a couple of bombs each, who have to leave the combat zone for the tanker in 15 minutes, or they send a B-52 to lay down a barrier carpet of bombs. What's wrong with a C-130 derivative turboprop medium bomber that can hang around over the battlefield for two hours and drop 30 or so bombs one at a time on the enemy?

Until we get someone in office - with sympathetic supporters in Congress - who actually gives a damn about the troops, we're going to be stuck with slash-and-burn attacks on the military from both parties.

[Coeloptera]

Originally Posted by TheWanderingMind

You know, it doesn't seem to make much difference who's in office... The military always takes it in the rear. When the democrats are in, you fight over #2 pencils, but your housing gets upgraded and military healthcare improves. When the republicans are in, you've got plenty of pencils, but you live in substandard quarters and fight for medical care.

Until we get someone in office - with sympathetic supporters in Congress - who actually gives a damn about the troops, we're going to be stuck with slash-and-burn attacks on the military from both parties.

Thank you. This is what I keep saying. Partisan divisiveness doesn't help the situation. Both sides of the political spectrum have good points that we, as a country, absolutely need. But people (like some in this thread) keep harping on the differences and blaming the other side for every ill in the world.

It's not like we don't have the money to keep the minutia of the military running well. Look how much cash is going unaccounted for in Iraq. If we shape up the budget first, it would give us a better idea of how much money we actually might need to pump into the system.

But too many people are making out like bandits because of the lack of oversight.

Funny, this weekend I was just telling a friend of mine how much infantry loves the A-10. I've never served, but the people I've known who have and have been in areas where they've been active have nothing but good words for them. Didn't someone once "threaten" to try and adopt that aircraft program if it got scrapped at one point?

- Coeloptera

[LarryO1970]

Originally Posted by Coeloptera

Thank you. This is what I keep saying. Partisan divisiveness doesn't help the situation. Both sides of the political spectrum have good points that we, as a country, absolutely need. But people (like some in this thread) keep harping on the differences and blaming the other side for every ill in the world.

It's not like we don't have the money to keep the minutia of the military running well. Look how much cash is going unaccounted for in Iraq. If we shape up the budget first, it would give us a better idea of how much money we actually might need to pump into the system.

But too many people are making out like bandits because of the lack of oversight.

Funny, this weekend I was just telling a friend of mine how much infantry loves the A-10. I've never served, but the people I've known who have and have been in areas where they've been active have nothing but good words for them. Didn't someone once "threaten" to try and adopt that aircraft program if it got scrapped at one point?

- Coeloptera

I know from my earlier years of service to this nation that Clinton was horrible with the military. Pay increases were minimal at best and the guys forward deployed were not supported well, it at all... especially when it was "his call". Example: The battle of Mogadishu in 1993, AC-130 Gunship support was denied. I am certain that is debatable, especially from his supporters, which I am not.

Maybe TXplt can advise on this ... but if memory serves correctly, the A-10 was due to be scrapped before the original Gulf War. Secondly, I've also heard that IF the USAF scraps the A-10 program, the Army wants it.

Personally... I think they'd be foolish to get rid of the A-10. A very durable, redundant aircraft that carries one helluva punch.

Oh yeah... less expensive to maintain than most other aircraft, so why would they keep it?

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

I know from my earlier years of service to this nation that Clinton was horrible with the military. Pay increases were minimal at best and the guys forward deployed were not supported well, it at all... especially when it was "his call". Example: The battle of Mogadishu in 1993, AC-130 Gunship support was denied. I am certain that is debatable, especially from his supporters, which I am not.

Maybe TXplt can advise on this ... but if memory serves correctly, the A-10 was due to be scrapped before the original Gulf War. Secondly, I've also heard that IF the USAF scraps the A-10 program, the Army wants it.

Personally... I think they'd be foolish to get rid of the A-10. A very durable, redundant aircraft that carries one helluva punch.

Oh yeah... less expensive to maintain than most other aircraft, so why would they keep it?

There was a Republican Congress for much of Clinton's time in office. Did they pass any pay raises that got vetoed by Clinton?

I agree with you about the A-10...good aircraft still performing useful functions.

[LarryO1970]

Originally Posted by troy2000

There was a Republican Congress for much of Clinton's time in office. Did they pass any pay raises that got vetoed by Clinton?

I agree with you about the A-10...good aircraft still performing useful functions.

I am unsure of that... all I know is that whomever made the decisions, we got barely enough to keep up with inflation.

[TXplt]

No matter what, slick willy was a wretched C in C to work for (IMHO)--speaking as someone who did this. We did the mission of course despite his total lack of personal integrety. It's not possible to respect someone who has no difficulty looking you in the eye and lying to you (and please save the response that others might have done this--I remember very much what it was like under klinton, and I limit my observations to that). Klinton jokes abounded, and the situation wasn't as healthy for our forces as it should have been--this was mr. klinton's fault. Had we had relations with someone working for us--even an intern as he did--we would have been court-martialed (I do know of cases where this happened). The klinton situation did NOT, however, detract from us accomplishing good things and having a good working environment amongst ourselves. Nor did it detract from our professional development, and us helping the development and readiness of others. A bad boss can't bring good people down. I'd really rather not see our good people placed in the same situation (I believe h, and o maybe to a lesser but not insignificant extent would do this vice McCain). McCain does understand how foreign policy and our forces work, o not at all.

The A-10 was originally scheduled to be scrapped many years ago; this didn't happen because it was (and is still) very good at what it does, the CAS mission (a certain general didn't like it, but, forunately was overruled--believe this was early under Bush 1). At the time (and probably now as well) nothing was as good at doing what it did, system and pilot wise. It has been upgraded, and I don't see it going away anytime soon (although I've been out for awhile). The pilots who fly it are solelly dedicated to the CAS mission and are extremely good at it--this is all they do (vice F-16's and others who have to "multitask.") As long as the threat isn't too high, it does great work. Huge gun !

I was a FAC in DS 1 (working with the Army), and I can vouch for the high regard held by Army troops for the A-10. I don't see the Army ever getting the fixed wing CAS mission anytime in the future (although, personally, I believe differently). IMHO, this has been due more than anything to some political squabbling, but the current situation still works pretty well.

Take care

[tlarkin]

Aren't the Repbulicans right now slashing health care and benefits for the military? I thought I had read several articles stating so.

That doesn't change the fact that we have been downsizing since like what, the Regan years?

[LarryO1970]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

Aren't the Repbulicans right now slashing health care and benefits for the military? I thought I had read several articles stating so.

That doesn't change the fact that we have been downsizing since like what, the Regan years?

You thought you had read several articles on this yet you do not recall any specifics to any of them? ... please provide something to substantiate this.

Reagan years were the Cold War. Obviously, we have been downsizing some since (some) feel the threat is not as great anymore. Personally, I feel we are under the same (if not more) threat as we were during his tenure.

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

You thought you had read several articles on this yet you do not recall any specifics to any of them? ... please provide something to substantiate this.

Reagan years were the Cold War. Obviously, we have been downsizing some since (some) feel the threat is not as great anymore. Personally, I feel we are under the same (if not more) threat as we were during his tenure.

here goes a link, not the article I remember reading, but google pulled it

Republicans Seek To Slash VA Budget! :: VAIW :: Veterans Against The Iraq War

[LarryO1970]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

here goes a link, not the article I remember reading, but google pulled it

Republicans Seek To Slash VA Budget! :: VAIW :: Veterans Against The Iraq War

Thanks for the link. I wonder if too much money was delegated toward something else where the budgeting wasn't going to work?

My question is simply... why? Was there "pork" involved here?

Question is, what was it? Anyone.... Bueller?

Did it eventually pass?

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

Thanks for the link. My question is simply... why? There had to be a rider or a.k.a. "pork" that they didn't want that created the friction for there to be those against it.

Question is, what was it? Anyone.... Bueller?

I kind of thought that was the trend. The republicans cut benefits and the Democrats cut pay. I mean they have to balance the books one way or another, and it is all money shifting.

Is that incorrect? I never served so I can't say that is true, but that is what I get from both parties. Both of them cut into the military just in different ways.

[LarryO1970]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

I kind of thought that was the trend. The republicans cut benefits and the Democrats cut pay. I mean they have to balance the books one way or another, and it is all money shifting.

Is that incorrect? I never served so I can't say that is true, but that is what I get from both parties. Both of them cut into the military just in different ways.

You are probably correct. Maybe we should start cutting the Senate and Congressional benefits to see how they like it... ?

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

You are probably correct. Maybe we should start cutting the Senate and Congressional benefits to see how they like it... ?

Along with their pay too, so they will have to drink cheap beer like me!