The next Republican CinC Must Reform The Military

[JohnEngelman]

Reduce "defense" spending by 80% in the first four years. The savings should be returned to the people in the form of tax cuts.

They money should be spent paying for Republican deficits.

 

[LittleDixie]

They money should be spent paying for Republican deficits.

GOVERNMENT deficits. Republicans and Democrats both voted again and again and again on bills that increased deficit spending. This is not a one party deal - everyone pushed their snout into the trough to get their piece of the cash. Thinking of this in terms of Right and Left is playing right into the game itself. BOTH the Right and the Left are a part of the political machine, and that government is the real problem.

But, whatever. You want to call them Republican deficits, then fine. But, you'll be the one who has to ask yourself why so many on the Left are voting for Republican spending? Odd, that.

 

[Rightguide]

But they used women very effectively as did the UK in WW2. The WAAFs were plotting incoming Nazi bombers, operating the radar sets, and directing fighters.

The Wrens were on shore because of prejudice about having women on ships, but they provided very useful roles.

As I said they have their place. They are on board our naval ships as well, but in that 10% of them are pregnant at any given time testifies to the added burden they represent. When a female is pregnant a male will likely have to fill her shoes and take on added responsibilities which makes ship life more inefficient and cumbersome. We tend to forget the United States Navy is a warfighting force that has to be maintained as such, not just another job. It has to have high morale, unit cohesion, a fighting spirit, and a killer instinct, all of which exist in lesser amounts in the female. That is not to disparage their desire to serve but to question whether or not it's enough to equal what men bring to the table in the form of discipline under stress, aggressiveness, physical fighting capability, and the will to persevere.

 

[oggbashan]

From this side of the pond, we cannot understand the concept of a republican C in C. Our senior military officers are non-political (until they have retired, which British Admirals never do). The head of our Armed forces, from whom all officers get commissions, is The Queen.

The Prime Minister can issue political objectives to the armed forces but (except for Churchill) usually leave the execution to the professionals.

 

[Rightguide]

From this side of the pond, we cannot understand the concept of a republican C in C. Our senior military officers are non-political (until they have retired, which British Admirals never do). The head of our Armed forces, from whom all officers get commissions, is The Queen.

The Prime Minister can issue political objectives to the armed forces but (except for Churchill) usually leave the execution to the professionals.

It's in our Constitution. It fortifies the principle of civilian control of the military.

 

[JohnEngelman]

GOVERNMENT deficits. Republicans and Democrats both voted again and again and again on bills that increased deficit spending. This is not a one party deal - everyone pushed their snout into the trough to get their piece of the cash. Thinking of this in terms of Right and Left is playing right into the game itself. BOTH the Right and the Left are a part of the political machine, and that government is the real problem.

But, whatever. You want to call them Republican deficits, then fine. But, you'll be the one who has to ask yourself why so many on the Left are voting for Republican spending? Odd, that.

Deficit spending only became a problem with Reagan's 1980 claim that he could cut taxes, raise military spending, and balance the budget without cutting popular items in the domestic budget. Since Reagan got away with that Republicans have cut taxes and raised military spending every chance they get.

 

[oggbashan]

It's in our Constitution. It fortifies the principle of civilian control of the military.

In UK theory, the armed forces have allegiance to the Crown, not parliament. In practice, since Oliver Cromwell, that hasn't been true.

 

[Tigersman]

Be prepared to kiss Russian and Korean ass.

Only if Trump is re-elected!!

 

[LittleDixie]

Deficit spending only became a problem with Reagan's 1980 claim that he could cut taxes, raise military spending, and balance the budget without cutting popular items in the domestic budget. Since Reagan got away with that Republicans have cut taxes and raised military spending every chance they get.

Then why do the Democrats vote for those bills?

...or does the deficit only go up when Republicans have the majorities in both Houses and the Presidency?

 

[QueequegsHead]

Military? Military? We don't need no stinkin' military! Military?

A military makes people nervous, more likely to distrust us, to attack us.
Just shut down the whole thing and we'll have the security Libs dream about.
It goes hand-in-hand with defunding the police and emptying the jails and no-cash bail.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Then why do the Democrats vote for those bills?

...or does the deficit only go up when Republicans have the majorities in both Houses and the Presidency?

Reagan increased the deficit and the national debt by cutting taxes, especially for the rich while raising military spending. Democrats in Congress who voted for tax cuts and increasing military spending share responsibility for the increases in the deficit and the national debt during the Reagan administration.

 

[Chobham]

1. Reagan didn't cut anybodies taxes, congress did.

2. Reagan didn't increase spending in any sector, congress did.

3. I'm continually amazed by the fact that, according to some, tax cuts only benefit the rich while tax increases only cripple the poor. It seems to me that doing away with taxes OR the poor will eliminate that particular argument. But that's a trick supposition, doing away with taxes will do away with the poor.

The US GDP is just a tad more than $20 trillion dollars while government spending is just a tad under $7 trillion dollars. Given that ~50% of the population pays no taxes at all someone has to be paying their "fair share." Continuing with that train of thought it stands to reason that the "rich" (depending on how you define that) will benefit the most from a tax cut. The ~50% that pay no taxes at all will experience no relief whatsoever. You just can't deduct below zero no matter how hard you try.

 

[oggbashan]

The British army is apolitical?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42932511

Then why does it transform to suit woke political diversity objectives. It should only transform its structure and composition and weaponry to meet the constantly changing style of conflict and security requirements.

The role of the military is the application of force or threat of force to meet politically set objectives. Transforming with powderpuffs does nothing to meet this role or the objectives and undermines morale and unity, which is why they were kept out or discharged until very recently. It is purely politically driven.

The British military is no different in bending over to globohomo and wokeness. Now the British soldiers and the nation itself will take it up the rear.

The changes were not by military insistence but by politicians (who should stay the fuck out!).

 

[Rightguide]

The changes were not by military insistence but by politicians (who should stay the fuck out!).

More and more here in the US Democrats consider the military another federal jobs program that has to offer equal opportunity to everyone even to those who are fully unsuited to its primary function. Its primary function being killing people and breaking things on an industrial scale of force and lethality as to thwart any design of aggression by any and all potential adversaries.

 

[Rightguide]

Fully agree, as I stated before. The military has become just another government department where reflecting diversity is more important than core function. It is even more vulnernable to this disaster as its main purpose is best suited to fit young men, and its culture is anything but democratic and equal opportunity. The army is a vocation where you specialise in specific skills. These libtards want to turn it into a 'career', where do your 9 to 5, tick all the right boxes, quotas, and do nothing to harm your pension. In the army if you don't meet certain targets in a time period, you get put out, retired or discharged, whether you like it or not. In a bureaucracy they just get put in an office until retirement.

Yep. We have to get serious about our military if we want to have a credible deterrent to aggression.

 

[iso36]

Automated Drone ships with Celebrity Faux Crews.

Matt Damon, Kardashians as guest skippers, that kind of thing.

Great for national pride.

 

[oggbashan]

Yep. We have to get serious about our military if we want to have a credible deterrent to aggression.

So does Russia. They had months to prepare for the invasion of Ukraine, a vast superiority in men, equipment, machines and aircraft and have done little with all that and have lost too many men and too much armament against an opponent they should steamrollered over.

If they attacked NATO or China? They would lose bigly.

 

[Rightguide]

They looking at a different deterent. who would invade a country infested with globohomo, 39 genders, transexuals, negro crime, feminism, grossly obese women etc. It would be like invading a leper colony.

if I watch some of those white trash reality shows, i want to stay as far away as possible. Does that jerry springer jew still carry on? It makes you think if americans are like that, another continent is far enough away. The decent Good White Men of america are made a mockery of.

The Red Chinese are completely different. They would have no problem coming in and killing every undesirable in the nation. None whatsoever. It's who they are.

 

[iso36]

If they attacked NATO or China? They would lose bigly.

If nukes are the only real threat from russia…i wonder if any of that old stuff works either.

 

[Rightguide]

So does Russia. They had months to prepare for the invasion of Ukraine, a vast superiority in men, equipment, machines and aircraft and have done little with all that and have lost too many men and too much armament against an opponent they should steamrollered over.

If they attacked NATO or China? They would lose bigly.

I think what has been proven is that putting aside their nuclear weapons, the Russians are in many ways a conventional paper tiger.

 

[Rightguide]

If nukes are the only real threat from russia…i wonder if any of that old stuff works either.

It's hard to say. Their present budget apparently isn't sufficient to feed Russian ground forces accept with rations that were out of date in 2015 and it's clear from inspections of captured vehicles they are way behind in their maintenance requirements as well. They have a small national defense budget so they might be prioritizing it towards keeping their air defenses and nuclear forces operational at the expense of everything else.

 

[iso36]

Don’t they have a bunch of subs too?

All the Ukraine subs are all married to Americans.

 

[Rightguide]

Don’t they have a bunch of subs too?

All the Ukraine subs are all married to Americans.

They have some, but after the Soviet Union fell a huge numbers of their fleet turned to rust in the Black Sea and the northeastern coastal waters and coasts of the Kola Peninsula the beaches were graveyards for many of their nuclear submarines. So much so newscasters up there would report the radiation levels along with the weather reports. You can read about the disasters here:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a34976195/russias-nuclear-submarine-graveyard/
Where is the Sierra Club and where is Greta?

 

[Rightguide]

Adi also underestimated Russia and called them a paper tiger, saying they lost so many men and so much equipment and are finished. Yet look at the result. It is never wise to under estimate an opponent. Especially when you do it from your won perspective. Americans are finished after minor losses. They pull out. Russia has different values. The chinks are even more extreme.

The Russians are very hard people. They have not been weakened with PC and liberalism and it would be wise to judge them in terms of if this happened to a western nation.

It only took the US 100 hours to eject the fourth largest Russian armed army in the world from Kuwait. In 100 hours the Iraqis lost:

20,000–50,000 killed[21][22]
75,000+ wounded[8]
80,000–175,000 captured[21][23][24]
3,300 tanks destroyed[21]
2,100 APCs destroyed[21]
2,200 artillery pieces destroyed[21]
110 aircraft destroyed[19]
137 aircraft flown to Iran to escape destruction[19]
19 ships sunk, 6 damaged[19]

Oh and this did scare the shit out of the Chinese as well. Later it would take only 21 days to invade Iraq and take Baghdad against the best of it Russian armed army out side of Russia. The insurgency would take another 9 years after Bush and Obama blew the victory. Most of the problems with the us military right now are with its Democrat leadership and woke generals an admirals they appointed to change our force.

 

[LittleDixie]

Reagan increased the deficit and the national debt by cutting taxes, especially for the rich while raising military spending. Democrats in Congress who voted for tax cuts and increasing military spending share responsibility for the increases in the deficit and the national debt during the Reagan administration.

Let's not conflate the debt and the deficit - two related but separate things.

Which are we talking about, debt or deficits?