In response to:

The first-rate idiots behind the new second-rate power

coveyrise Wrote: Feb 10, 2013 10:21 AM
With the current redundancy in our military I don't think a 10% to 12% cut would be hard to achieve at all without reducing our capabilities. Do we really need different fighter jets for the Air Force, Marines and Navy? Do we really need a "motor pool maintenance shop" at every air base and army post? How many kinds of helicopters do we really need? Every branch of the military has it's own "Special Forces" yet when an event like Benghazi occurs we can't seem to get any of them there in time even though we are less than an hour away? WTF? The only reason our military can't be more efficient is because we don't try.
Tired in Texas Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 4:49 PM
Covey, you asked, "Do we really need a "motor pool maintenance shop" at every air base and army post?" You have obviously never been on an Army post or Air Force base.

Each of these installations has mess halls, movie theatres, commissaries, fire departments, hospitals, schools, recreation centers, libraries, etc. Do we need one of each of those at every base and post. Of course we do. The military needs to maintain its equipment -- vehicles, buildings, roads, etc. It also needs to see to the health and welfare of the people who work and live on each installation. Until you know what you're talking about, you'd be better off keeping your mouth shut.
Delta Wrote: Feb 10, 2013 2:29 PM
And because each of the branches you listed is trying to outdo the others in conning taxpayer funds - why can't these children play nicely together?
Milt37 Wrote: Feb 10, 2013 2:54 PM

You are correct in pointing out that there is a lot of internecine fighting amongst the services. However, designing a plane for the Navy, when it has to be capable of launching and landing on a carrier is way different than what the Air Force needs. You can make compromises, but like all compromises, they are never optimal. Usually, you just end up with a horse designed by a commitee, a camel.

By the same token, until recently the Marines and Army had very different missions. I do believe there's areas that can be cut. But I always would like to see it as for $1 cut from defense, there should be at least $2 cut from domestic spending.

coveyrise Wrote: Feb 10, 2013 10:28 AM
I was in the Army stationed in the Washington DC area back in the 70s during Vietnam. You could walk into any office in the Pentagon and see people playing chess, working crossword puzzles or reading a book any day of the week. The same was true on any military base or post. We had career officers running out of our ears doing virtually nothing. We have the finest military in the world but that fact alone does not mean we are as efficient as we could be. We still use troops on the ground when a high tech air assault would be more effective. War is hell. Trying to be politically correct is deadly dangerous.
Milt37 Wrote: Feb 10, 2013 1:40 PM

Thanks for your service, unfortunately in your case it seems to show that "Be all you can be", doesn't always result in very much.

Yes. The USAF, USN, and sometimes the USMC do need different aircraft because their missions and operational requirements are so different. Trying to combine them into a single design is usaully folly. See the F-111 and the current F-35 programs for prime examples.

Same thing applies to helicopters. An Apache can't transport troops, and a Chinook makes for a very lousy attack chopper.

Obviously, your stint in the Pentagon mail-room didn't expose you to these details.
Delta Wrote: Feb 10, 2013 2:30 PM
Delta Wrote: Feb 10, 2013 2:31 PM
This is a pile of demmie/progressive male-cow excrement. All this does is spend more taxpayer money every year.

February 10, 2013

“It will begin. It will last ten years. It will be good for the economy. It will be very helpful,” anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist said recently. The “it” he refers to is what’s become known as “the sequester” — automatic spending cuts in the Budget Control Act of 2011 that were originally proposed and then signed into law by President Barack Obama, after being passed by both Houses of Congress.

Since everyone from Mr. Obama to the backest-bench blowhard congressman argues that we need to curtail out-of-control deficit spending, the...

Related Tags: NeW