Obama's Plan to disarm America WTF???
08-28-2008, 11:37 AM
#1
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (18)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Subabrew Crew
Posts: 7,570
Car Info: Broken Subarus
Obama's Plan to disarm America WTF???
WND source but worth a discussion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84P...w&pageId=73464
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?f...w&pageId=73464
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84P...w&pageId=73464
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?f...w&pageId=73464
Last edited by ipozestu; 08-28-2008 at 11:40 AM.
08-28-2008, 01:27 PM
#5
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (18)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Subabrew Crew
Posts: 7,570
Car Info: Broken Subarus
Absolutely, the US military has been picked apart for 2+ decades, with just cause. Fortunately prior to 9/11, the world as a whole was relatively peaceful The mentality of doing more with less has completely shown that the US troops are stretched two thin to handle multiple conflicts with less resources. The deployment of the National Guard over seas has left a serious gap in security at home.
Unfortunately a new president will not change our enemies perception. Seeing as how the light at the end of the tunnel (if there ever was one) is far from reach; maybe becoming dimmer. Now, hardly seems to be the time to talk about reducing defense spending.
08-28-2008, 01:47 PM
#6
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Specially since we seem to lack the moral fortitude to use these weapons.
I was refering to whole fleets and divisions that are no more.
08-28-2008, 05:48 PM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Posts: 5,686
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
Think of it as insurance. I really have no interest in seeing how well my insurance company will handle a claim. All I care is they have the resources in the event I file a claim.
Absolutely, the US military has been picked apart for 2+ decades, with just cause. Fortunately prior to 9/11, the world as a whole was relatively peaceful The mentality of doing more with less has completely shown that the US troops are stretched two thin to handle multiple conflicts with less resources. The deployment of the National Guard over seas has left a serious gap in security at home.
Unfortunately a new president will not change our enemies perception. Seeing as how the light at the end of the tunnel (if there ever was one) is far from reach; maybe becoming dimmer. Now, hardly seems to be the time to talk about reducing defense spending.
Absolutely, the US military has been picked apart for 2+ decades, with just cause. Fortunately prior to 9/11, the world as a whole was relatively peaceful The mentality of doing more with less has completely shown that the US troops are stretched two thin to handle multiple conflicts with less resources. The deployment of the National Guard over seas has left a serious gap in security at home.
Unfortunately a new president will not change our enemies perception. Seeing as how the light at the end of the tunnel (if there ever was one) is far from reach; maybe becoming dimmer. Now, hardly seems to be the time to talk about reducing defense spending.
Think of this as insurance that we can't afford. We need a less expensive insurance policy. And seeing that no enemy's conventional military has stepped on US soil since WWII, I think we'll be OK. No size of army/navy personnel is going to deter a suicidal terrorist group, so deterrence by presence is a waste of money.
I'm all for having a strong military. And it is strong, not 1980's strong, but strong. We're not in the cold war anymore and our only immediate threat is terrorism which can't be fought in any any conventional battle, so it makes sense to hold off on funding.
And just in case I come of as some hippie liberal which I can understand after reading some of my own posts. I'm not. I spent 6 years in the Navy operating and maintaning the CIWS you see in my avatar. I have a lot of love for my country, but I don't like see our guys out there trying to turn Iraq into America Part 2 and getting killed in the process. I think it's time we start working on our countries own problems which are plenty.
09-02-2008, 10:07 AM
#9
VIP Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Detroit, Where the weak are killed and eaten...
Posts: 2,064
Car Info: 02 Impreza WRX Sedan & 2008 GMC Sierra 4x4
The key point is that our troops are stretch thin because they are out in other countries fighting wars that don't even involve the US. Not to mention, we are borrowing gobs of money from foreign countries to help pay for it. And we still can't even afford to issue out enough flack jackets and armored vehicles. This is a time where we need to seriously rethink where our money is going.
Think of this as insurance that we can't afford. We need a less expensive insurance policy. And seeing that no enemy's conventional military has stepped on US soil since WWII, I think we'll be OK. No size of army/navy personnel is going to deter a suicidal terrorist group, so deterrence by presence is a waste of money.
I'm all for having a strong military. And it is strong, not 1980's strong, but strong. We're not in the cold war anymore and our only immediate threat is terrorism which can't be fought in any any conventional battle, so it makes sense to hold off on funding.
And just in case I come of as some hippie liberal which I can understand after reading some of my own posts. I'm not. I spent 6 years in the Navy operating and maintaning the CIWS you see in my avatar. I have a lot of love for my country, but I don't like see our guys out there trying to turn Iraq into America Part 2 and getting killed in the process. I think it's time we start working on our countries own problems which are plenty.
Think of this as insurance that we can't afford. We need a less expensive insurance policy. And seeing that no enemy's conventional military has stepped on US soil since WWII, I think we'll be OK. No size of army/navy personnel is going to deter a suicidal terrorist group, so deterrence by presence is a waste of money.
I'm all for having a strong military. And it is strong, not 1980's strong, but strong. We're not in the cold war anymore and our only immediate threat is terrorism which can't be fought in any any conventional battle, so it makes sense to hold off on funding.
And just in case I come of as some hippie liberal which I can understand after reading some of my own posts. I'm not. I spent 6 years in the Navy operating and maintaning the CIWS you see in my avatar. I have a lot of love for my country, but I don't like see our guys out there trying to turn Iraq into America Part 2 and getting killed in the process. I think it's time we start working on our countries own problems which are plenty.
Well said...
I hate the fact that when you agree with a policy like this people on the other side of the fence label you with the hippie liberal america hating tag.....F*ckin hate that......I am a pro gun, pro-choice moderate that has voted both sides of the coin in the last 8 years. I base my vote on issues not party lines and television ads and I hate being branded by ignorant a**holes.
/rant off
Sorry had to get that off my chest...
I feel better...
09-04-2008, 07:51 AM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14
Car Info: 2006 WRX Shagun, Wagun
Also what makes me mad is people sticking things where they don't belong. We get this crazy spending for pet projects in the larger bills that will pass so this way they can get funding. And then they take it from teh military because it is spending too much on a battle that we sent them to. But we have enough money to pay 3X the amount for contractors that are taking jobs from trained men and women in those areas. I will be curious to see what will happen when certain people are out of office and how the speding changes at that point.
09-04-2008, 07:56 AM
#12
VIP Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Detroit, Where the weak are killed and eaten...
Posts: 2,064
Car Info: 02 Impreza WRX Sedan & 2008 GMC Sierra 4x4
Also what makes me mad is people sticking things where they don't belong. We get this crazy spending for pet projects in the larger bills that will pass so this way they can get funding. And then they take it from teh military because it is spending too much on a battle that we sent them to. But we have enough money to pay 3X the amount for contractors that are taking jobs from trained men and women in those areas. I will be curious to see what will happen when certain people are out of office and how the speding changes at that point.
I do honestly believe though that regardless of who gets elected Obama or McCain the USA is gonna be so much better off.
09-04-2008, 08:29 AM
#13
BAM9 Ladies choice Carshow winner
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Vallejo-Fairfield-Travis
Posts: 3,807
Car Info: 13 FR-S/05 STI
I actually was responsible for both Peacekeeper and Minuteman nukes back in the day. And let me tell you; it sucks providing security or controlling forces to secure them. So, if he does disarm them, to me it sounds like a good deal. But, not having the air power, would totally jeopardize our security.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post