US Government Shutdown

[esmith]

Which situation are you referring? I don't really have time to read an entire book just to satisfy a single response in a debate thread.

Cutting the military as you suggest. If you are going to make a flat statement maybe you should study history. FYI the book concerns the events and decisions prior to and during the Korean War concerning military readiness. However, unless you read it you will not understand where you going wrong.

 

[1robin]

We do not provide "protection" or "freedom" to other nations. We put it out there to maintain a powerful hand in the world and to use as leverage in foreign policy. The only country that has really benefited from having us as an ally would be Israel and thats because they are our outsourced torture camp.

That is historical heresy.

1. Britain treated us like a tax base without rights for years. We were helped when almost exhausted by millions raised by Jews. We then whipped them twice and then supported them and actually saved them from non-existence twice.
2. Japan attacked us. We whipped then then rebuilt their country, gave it back, and protected it at our expense.
3. Germany attacked our citizens and our allies if the free world. We whipped them, rebuilt the country, and gave it back. See the martial plane.
4. We established the UN to try and stop these massacres.
5. Communist N Korea attacked out democratic allies. We whipped them.
6. The Chinese invaded Korea and after a bit we whipped them as well. We have protected the Parallel in Korea ever since.
8. Communist N Vietnam invaded out ally. We whipped them in every battle yet out liberal leaders lacked the moral conviction to win the war. We screwed S Vietnam (or at least the liberals among us did).
9. Russia invaded Afghanistan, we trained and equipped the Mujahidin and they whipped Russia for us.
10. Sadam invaded our ally. We whipped him.
11.The same Muslims we helped in Afghanistan attacked us on and off in cowardly terrorist acts. They paid a tremendous price. We however have never taken anyone's oil and have spent billions and lost out soldiers in limiting civilian causalities as much as possible. We built Iraq back using 100's of billions of our own money.

We have given more money to charity than any nation in history and with the exception of liberal leaders that lack moral fortitude have always defended freedom at our own cost. Read the mid 40s transcripts between Roosevelt, Truman, and Churchill. We did everything but threaten war to put an end to England's colonialism. No other nation has rebuilt and return as many nations back to their occupants than we have. Without us evil would have totally swept the earth by now.

 

[1robin]

Where's the supposed ethics in keeping pumping money into defense weapons that the Pentagon doesn't even want while at the same time reducing veteran's benefits and ending unemployment compensation for over one million Americans?

I as unclear what you were saying.

1. The primary function of the federal government above all else it to provide military forces that not only can protect or home and shipping, but also out allies.






2. Everything else is distant second.

The most effective way to preserve the peace is to be ready for war.

Our weakened liberal leader have of course got every thing backwards. The strip defense and invent new post of money through health care so the may spend it on more government like they did with SS and Medicare. This exact same kind of crap has doomed societies since the Egyptian,

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Cutting the military as you suggest. If you are going to make a flat statement maybe you should study history. FYI the book concerns the events and decisions prior to and during the Korean War concerning military readiness. However, unless you read it you will not understand where you going wrong.

I've studied enough history to know where to stand on military spending. I don't actually support cutting the military to the degree in which we were discussing. The reason I brought it up was to see where you specifically saw the need for military action and spending and its current realistic usage rather than imagined need. I also thought it would be a fun discussion. It has been till you basically said to read one specific book or the discussion is done.

Perhaps it will be more fruitful if we discuss it in the terms of where I want the mlitary budget to be. Roughly 50% of what we spend now. Mostly done by cutting useless bases round the world and at home. The overwhelming vast majority of our military is paid to run drills and most never see combat. We loose more to suicide than combat.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That is historical heresy.

Lets see shall we?

1. Britain treated us like a tax base without rights for years. We were helped when almost exhausted by millions raised by Jews. We then whipped them twice and then supported them and actually saved them from non-existence twice.

Yes. Britain utilized the colony system in order to enhance the wealth of their own nation due to the economic theory of mercantilism that was popular during that age. The wealthy business owners of the colonies figured out they were being screwed an then whipped the poorly equipped and never trained rag tag team of farmers, artisans and craftsmen to fight the world's most powerful country.
Luckily for us it is *** expensive to ship soldiers across the farthest body of water discovered at this point. Also lucky that they had assumed we would fail economically. We didn't "win". They gave up and we prospered unexpectedly. And I can only go on to assume that by "save them" you mean WWI and WWII. WWI we didn't initially get into. We used the war to make mad amounts of money producing and eventually got into the fray and broke the stalemate. In WWII we intercepted messages between Germany and Mexico. It wasn't out of the kindness of our hearts.

2. Japan attacked us. We whipped then then rebuilt their country, gave it back, and protected it at our expense.

We did re-build their country and they are our ***** now. They have petitioned several times to get their own standing military. They rely on us because we broke their legs. They are not allowed at all by OUR law to have a standing military. They are also our vantage point against China without having to put our own people in danger in case of a strike. Again not for the good of the Japanese people

3. Germany attacked our citizens and our allies if the free world. We whipped them, rebuilt the country, and gave it back. See the martial plane.

In WWI we broke them. We showed no mercy. Thats what called WWII. In order to prevent WWIII it was a united decision by the allies to give Germany a break and allow them to recover economically.

4. We established the UN to try and stop these massacres.

We did not establish the UN. We rejected a proposition for a ally alliance under a different name and then later proposed the UN which was then adopted by other nations. The idea was not originally a US idea and the UN is not an American organization. America is part of the UN however.

5. Communist N Korea attacked out democratic allies. We whipped them.

Not for the allies. The capitalist benefactors of the politicians at the time were scared of communism and what it would mean if it worked. They fought communism wherever it was out of personal interest rather than any humanitarian cause.

6. The Chinese invaded Korea and after a bit we whipped them as well. We have protected the Parallel in Korea ever since.

We have never "whipped" the Chinese. We fought them and came to an impasse as neither nation wanted a full scale war between the two countries as we were indirectly fighting. I think we failed Korea as we failed to overtake the North. Since then we haven't had to make any military action to keep the border safe.

8. Communist N Vietnam invaded out ally. We whipped them in every battle yet out liberal leaders lacked the moral conviction to win the war. We screwed S Vietnam (or at least the liberals among us did).

Again it was capitalist investors wanting to stamp out communism out of fear that it would work and remove capitalism and their fortunes. It wasn't about humanitarian work.
Also your simply incorrect to say that "liberals" failed anyone at any time with this. It was a very unpopular war. It was the first war where we had pictures and video (in color and in mass) that shown the dark side of war. You can't wage a useless war when people back at home know its unwinable and with false intent. It was costing countless lives, countless dollars and we were not winning even after years.

9. Russia invaded Afghanistan, we trained and equipped the Mujahidin and they whipped Russia for us.

Yep. Russia is our rival in many ways and we made sure that they didn't get any more power so we shut them down.

10. Sadam invaded our ally. We whipped him.

Oil based interest.\

11.The same Muslims we helped in Afghanistan attacked us on and off in cowardly terrorist acts. They paid a tremendous price. We however have never taken anyone's oil and have spent billions and lost out soldiers in limiting civilian causalities as much as possible. We built Iraq back using 100's of billions of our own money.

Afghanistan has never attacked us. The whole invasion was based off of ignorance, xenophobia and even racism in some cases. 9/11 wasn't propagated by Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq or any nation. We invaded to protect oil interests again. Also many of the Bush supporters made out millions and even billions from the war. And nothing was really accomplished. I'm glad Sadam was taken out but that was not why we did what we did or why we are doing what we are doing now.

We have given more money to charity than any nation in history and with the exception of liberal leaders that lack moral fortitude have always defended freedom at our own cost. Read the mid 40s transcripts between Roosevelt, Truman, and Churchill. We did everything but threaten war to put an end to England's colonialism. No other nation has rebuilt and return as many nations back to their occupants than we have. Without us evil would have totally swept the earth by now.

Wow....really? I can't even believe the bold was even stated. Of all the arrogant and ignorant things you could have said thats what you went with? I don't even know if this is worthy of a real response.

 

[Revoltingest]

The capitalist benefactors of the politicians at the time were scared of communism and what it would mean if it worked. They fought communism wherever it was out of personal interest rather than any humanitarian cause.
:
Again it was capitalist investors wanting to stamp out communism out of fear that it would work and remove capitalism and their fortunes.

You have a recollection of the anti-commie days very different from mine. Communism was everywhere an economic failure on a massive scale, so they were no threat to capitalists in this way. Instead, they were seen as expansionist thugs, & posed a long term military threat.
Oh, they were "godless" too.

It wasn't about humanitarian work.

I can agree with this.

Afghanistan has never attacked us. The whole invasion was based off of ignorance, xenophobia and even racism in some cases. 9/11 wasn't propagated by Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq or any nation. We invaded to protect oil interests again.

How were our oil interests advanced by those wars? And what is the value compared to the 4 to 6 trillion dollar cost (per some wag at Harvard)?

I see very different motives for the wars, but protection of capitalists isn't one of'm.

 

[esmith]

I've studied enough history to know where to stand on military spending. I don't actually support cutting the military to the degree in which we were discussing. The reason I brought it up was to see where you specifically saw the need for military action and spending and its current realistic usage rather than imagined need. I also thought it would be a fun discussion. It has been till you basically said to read one specific book or the discussion is done.

Perhaps it will be more fruitful if we discuss it in the terms of where I want the mlitary budget to be. Roughly 50% of what we spend now. Mostly done by cutting useless bases round the world and at home. The overwhelming vast majority of our military is paid to run drills and most never see combat. We loose more to suicide than combat.

So, I suggested you read one book or just maybe ask what this book brought forth that showed what happens when you cut the military to the bone. So, where do you see the budget as a whole? First what should be the percentage of the discretionary and non-discretionary in relation to the entire budget? Second what percentage of the discretionary budget should the military have? First, I suspect you have never served in the military. One might ask how I came to this conclusion and the answer is fairly simple. It is the next to last statement you make. First, I assume by "drills", you mean training. If not please explain your definition of "drills". If it is training then you really have no idea what training accomplishes. Could you imagine how a crew aboard ship would react to various shipboard problems without training for those events. How could pilots learn their combat skills without training, how about tank crews, artillery batteries, and right down to the fire teams in a combat situation. There is an old adage "train like you fight and fight like you train" that should be the cornerstone of any military training.
Now, I am not one of those that thinks that the US should be the worlds policeman. Anytime a politician wants to use the military, the first question should be, "does the situation have a direct bearing of the security of the US". One caveat to this is a situation where we are obligated by a treaty to come to the aid of another country. However, since we are a member of the UN, I would suppose that we should agree to commit the military if so deemed by the UN; either that or withdraw from the UN. You advocate for elimination of "useless" bases, both at home and abroad. First one would have to ask what you deem as "useless bases abroad. I can think of a few, Germany for one. However, we live in a dangerous world, and it is my opinion that "Foggy Bottom" is a major contributor to failings that the US has suffered in the past, Benghazi for one. Look at the problems we are experiencing in various places around the world. Egypt...US supported the Muslim Brotherhood and now Egypt has declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group....Iraq...US is now arming the Government of Iraq (I thought Iraq was a done deal Obama).....Afghanistan....what happens when the US pulls out, back to what it was prior to sending troops? Syria.... First Assad was a reformer and a "good guy", then a war criminal. What next. Al-Qaeda was on the run last year and now they are growing in size and posing more serious threats around the world (see Iraq). So, you want to gut the military by 50%, but you expect them to answer any call any time; well maybe not you specifically but those running the country do.
Now, to your comment about more suicides than combat deaths, True. But ask yourself why. But the answer is not simple and there are many contributing factors. I think the biggest one is the lack of diagnosis and treatment. It is going to take a considerable amount of money to treat this problem and it will continue to get worse as more and more is demanded of the military with less and less money to address the situation. When you cut the number of personnel in the military due to cutting the funds you are asking less to do the same as they were previously. To cut the funds you have to cut the commitments.

 

[esmith]

Lets see shall we?


We did re-build their country and they are our ***** now. They have petitioned several times to get their own standing military. They rely on us because we broke their legs. They are not allowed at all by OUR law to have a standing military. They are also our vantage point against China without having to put our own people in danger in case of a strike. Again not for the good of the Japanese people

Yes and no. By the treaty that Japan signed they agreed not to have a "standing army". However, they were not forbidden to have a "self-defense force".

As a matter of fact their military expenditures are in the top 10, and it is one of the most advanced armies in the world technologically, but still very small in terms of the number of people. The main difference after WWII is that Japan pledged never to deploy their forces abroad for any reason, though in the past 10-15 years they have been involved in some overseas peacekeeping, and contributed a destroyer and a refueling ship as a support asset to the war in Afghanistan. At this point, if Japan decided to increase the size of its military it wouldn't really be forbidden from doing so, but Japan has kept its military small by choice because, frankly, it's much cheaper. Finally, while the United States never formally agreed to protect Japan the number of US military bases in the country means that, in a practical sense, it does. This has also allowed Japan to get away with keeping its military small, since the US Navy and other assets are spread all around Japan and S Korea. As far as the future goes, it's harder to say because the US has been rolling back military expenditures. It wouldn't be surprising to see the US encouraging Japan to increase the size of its military in order to decrease reliance on the US for protection, but it could easily go either way.

above from ww2 - Does Japan have the right to have its own army or navy? - History Stack Exchange (it was easier to let a more articulate source provide the facts than me trying too.

 

[metis]

I as unclear what you were saying.

1. The primary function of the federal government above all else it to provide military forces that not only can protect or home and shipping, but also out allies.

2. Everything else is distant second.

The most effective way to preserve the peace is to be ready for war.

Our weakened liberal leader have of course got every thing backwards. The strip defense and invent new post of money through health care so the may spend it on more government like they did with SS and Medicare. This exact same kind of crap has doomed societies since the Egyptian,

All you have done is to take what I said to twist it to your own ends, and then thrown in some partisan and completely nonsensical hyperbole to boot. And you clearly know not much of anything about the demise of the Egyptian and many other empires as we are aware of in anthropological circles.

Therefore, as before, trying to discuss something from an actual evidencial basis is not something you are willing to do instead of twisting and turning your own "facts" . For example, tell us about the ancient Egyptian policies of "Social Security"-type and "Medicare"-type if you will, or programs of any such nature. On second thought, don't bother-- I've seen more than enough of your "inventive" imagination. You totally discredit yourself with this nonsense.

 

[esmith]

All you have done is to take what I said to twist it to your own ends, and then thrown in some partisan and completely nonsensical hyperbole to boot. And you clearly know not much of anything about the demise of the Egyptian and many other empires as we are aware of in anthropological circles.

Therefore, as before, trying to discuss something from an actual evidencial basis is not something you are willing to do instead of twisting and turning your own "facts" . For example, tell us about the ancient Egyptian policies of "Social Security"-type and "Medicare"-type if you will, or programs of any such nature. On second thought, don't bother-- I've seen more than enough of your "inventive" imagination. You totally discredit yourself with this nonsense.

I think you lost me here when you start referencing ancient Egypt. How, does ancient Egypt relate to the world situation and the US at this time? Just curious.

 

[metis]

I think you lost me here when you start referencing ancient Egypt. How, does ancient Egypt relate to the world situation and the US at this time? Just curious.

Please check post #543.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

My post was not simply directed only at you, but in general. Many people go on about cutting the military as if it is some nebulous entity with no real people who have to support actual families. And my jumping on Democrats while giving Republicans a pass is a creation of your own imagination.

And cuts in other areas have the same effect on people trying to support their families...(see proposed $40 Billion in SNAP cuts while beefing up farm subsidies) and (see those on the right not wanting to extend unemployment benefits even though this was never an issue in the past...)

And as far as you giving your fellow republicans a pass...No, it's not my imagination unless you can show that you've condemned them for their support for across the board cuts, even to the military.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You have a recollection of the anti-commie days very different from mine. Communism was everywhere an economic failure on a massive scale, so they were no threat to capitalists in this way. Instead, they were seen as expansionist thugs, & posed a long term military threat.
Oh, they were "godless" too.

Communism did fail in many places. China still retains the economic system as does Cuba. Russia is really the only major player that abandoned the system. However there was a massive rejection of the economic idea before its "failure" was evident. Though they didn't hesitate to use the Russian totalitarian pseudo communist government as a poster child to slander communism in general did it? I am not a communist as it isn't a good system.

I can agree with this.

Hey me too!.

How were our oil interests advanced by those wars? And what is the value compared to the 4 to 6 trillion dollar cost (per some wag at Harvard)?

I see very different motives for the wars, but protection of capitalists isn't one of'm.

The oil wealth found in Afghanistan and other surrounding countries was a relatively recent discovery and prior to the war and all the way up till 2003 they were nationalized and closed off to any privatized investments much less foreign private investments. Now the oil fields are nearly dominated entirely by western investors with some of the biggest being the American corporations of Exxon, Shell, Chevron and BP. These oils are also free of US taxation and regulation except when we import it.

Iraq alone produces 35 million barrels of oil a day.

It also helps that they didn't have to "pay" for the war and that the money spent on the war also paid for the gasoline used for the vehicles and its no secret that the US military is the largest buyer of gasoline and other oil products in the world. The taxpayers (us and other companies) have paid for the wars in the middle east. Much of the oil industry already receives massive subsidies in addition to all the business.

Thats how they cash out. Its not a secret that they cash out and its worked out wonderfully. What is sort of a secret is how much they may or may not have directly caused the war in terms of the decision to go. Its strange though as to why they went at all. Why would a terrorist plot that had nothing to do with Iran, Afganistan or Iraq have us invade Iran? then Afganistan and then Iraq? We were so mad about 9/11 that we had to attack Sadam? Thats like saying I am so mad that a black teenager stole my TV that I went and bombed Detroit.

So, I suggested you read one book or just maybe ask what this book brought forth that showed what happens when you cut the military to the bone. So, where do you see the budget as a whole? First what should be the percentage of the discretionary and non-discretionary in relation to the entire budget? Second what percentage of the discretionary budget should the military have? First, I suspect you have never served in the military. One might ask how I came to this conclusion and the answer is fairly simple. It is the next to last statement you make. First, I assume by "drills", you mean training. If not please explain your definition of "drills". If it is training then you really have no idea what training accomplishes. Could you imagine how a crew aboard ship would react to various shipboard problems without training for those events. How could pilots learn their combat skills without training, how about tank crews, artillery batteries, and right down to the fire teams in a combat situation. There is an old adage "train like you fight and fight like you train" that should be the cornerstone of any military training.
Now, I am not one of those that thinks that the US should be the worlds policeman. Anytime a politician wants to use the military, the first question should be, "does the situation have a direct bearing of the security of the US". One caveat to this is a situation where we are obligated by a treaty to come to the aid of another country. However, since we are a member of the UN, I would suppose that we should agree to commit the military if so deemed by the UN; either that or withdraw from the UN. You advocate for elimination of "useless" bases, both at home and abroad. First one would have to ask what you deem as "useless bases abroad. I can think of a few, Germany for one. However, we live in a dangerous world, and it is my opinion that "Foggy Bottom" is a major contributor to failings that the US has suffered in the past, Benghazi for one. Look at the problems we are experiencing in various places around the world. Egypt...US supported the Muslim Brotherhood and now Egypt has declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group....Iraq...US is now arming the Government of Iraq (I thought Iraq was a done deal Obama).....Afghanistan....what happens when the US pulls out, back to what it was prior to sending troops? Syria.... First Assad was a reformer and a "good guy", then a war criminal. What next. Al-Qaeda was on the run last year and now they are growing in size and posing more serious threats around the world (see Iraq). So, you want to gut the military by 50%, but you expect them to answer any call any time; well maybe not you specifically but those running the country do.
Now, to your comment about more suicides than combat deaths, True. But ask yourself why. But the answer is not simple and there are many contributing factors. I think the biggest one is the lack of diagnosis and treatment. It is going to take a considerable amount of money to treat this problem and it will continue to get worse as more and more is demanded of the military with less and less money to address the situation. When you cut the number of personnel in the military due to cutting the funds you are asking less to do the same as they were previously. To cut the funds you have to cut the commitments.

I'll try to respond briefly to each point.

1) I think the overall spending should be decreased to about 50%. We would still have by far the largest military in the world. Discretionary spending should increase in percentage while non-discretionary should drop. This is because we need to decrease the total number of bases we have around the world. We simply don't need them. We would save untold millions if we simply re-directed some of our overseas efforts to homeland efforts. The National guard is far cheaper to uphold even with the same number of people. The national guard should be our largest force as its truly the only one that should have to be used. Otherwise we're simply out sticking ourselves in places we don't belong.

2) You would be correct. I know people in the military however. I also know they don't "do" anything productive. They are there in case Russia turns communist again and tries to start a war. Unfortunately no nation has attempted to fight us directly since WWII. All other situations have been where we jump into other frays for alternative reasons. Vietnam was not needed, Korea wasn't necessarily needed but I am glad we did get involved. I wish that we would put our military to action with more real humanitarian efforts rather than furthering economic interests.

3) Yes the world is a dangerous place but after a decade of war what have we made better? Its still just nothing but a hot mess just like it was before we got involved. If anything we've made things worse but instead of money going to the local populations the money for the oil goes to American Corporations.

If the situation is truly bad enough then the UN needs to step in. Not the US. The US should step in as a combined effort with other nations within the UN but nothing more. But I mean we increased our military budget this year from last year and Al-queda is only growing more and more powerful? Doesn't that prove that our endless war profiteering isnt' effective in means of defeating them?

4) No the point when mentioning the suicides is that we are simply doing more harm that good. We aren't in a "war". We aren't in an endless combat. We are simply putting people at risk needlessly.

Though you seem to think that I'm advocating we continue to do what we are doing but simply with less people. To the contrary. The us should do less. We aren't known in the middle east as "peacemakers" we are known as "tyrants"

Yes and no. By the treaty that Japan signed they agreed not to have a "standing army". However, they were not forbidden to have a "self-defense force". above from ww2 - Does Japan have the right to have its own army or navy? - History Stack Exchange (it was easier to let a more articulate source provide the facts than me trying too.

Self-defense force is hardly a military. Its akin to our national guard but even smaller. Though this only proves that we don't need to protect them. If anything they are simply saving money on our behalf needlessly. However it is also interesting that your article mentions that we don't actually protect them. we simply use their land as a point of operations to spy on China, NK and Russia. They simply benefit from the side effect of our presence being there.

 

[Apex]

And cuts in other areas have the same effect on people trying to support their families...(see proposed $40 Billion in SNAP cuts while beefing up farm subsidies) and (see those on the right not wanting to extend unemployment benefits even though this was never an issue in the past...)

Exactly, thus my comment about immediate massive cuts ruining people's lives. Congress could easily avoid this if they could get their act together. But pigs will fly before that ever happens.

And as far as you giving your fellow republicans a pass...No, it's not my imagination unless you can show that you've condemned them for their support for across the board cuts, even to the military.

Show me where I even made any distinction between Republicans or Democrats? This is an issue that is completely in your own mind.

 

[esmith]

2). I know people in the military however. I also know they don't "do" anything productive.

To comment on this statement I would have to have additional information.
1. What branch of the service are they in
2. Are they officer or enlisted
3. What is their military specialty if
3a. officer and what grade
3b. enlisted and what rank
4. Where are they stationed
5. How long have they been in the service
and the big question is what do you consider being "productive", which relates back to their specialty. Say if they are in a combat specialty then to be productive they would either be killing someone or training to do so. If they are in a support role then to be productive they would have to be supporting those in a combat specialty. However, there are time in the active duty military that member provide humanitarian aid. Maybe you need to ask yourself if you are being over critical and not seeing the big picture.

 

[Apex]

I know people in the military however. I also know they don't "do" anything productive. They are there in case Russia turns communist again and tries to start a war.

You seem to know very little about the military if this is what you think.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

To comment on this statement I would have to have additional information.
1. What branch of the service are they in
2. Are they officer or enlisted
3. What is their military specialty if
3a. officer and what grade
3b. enlisted and what rank
4. Where are they stationed
5. How long have they been in the service
and the big question is what do you consider being "productive", which relates back to their specialty. Say if they are in a combat specialty then to be productive they would either be killing someone or training to do so. If they are in a support role then to be productive they would have to be supporting those in a combat specialty. However, there are time in the active duty military that member provide humanitarian aid. Maybe you need to ask yourself if you are being over critical and not seeing the big picture.

1) Army
2) Enlisted
3) Private 1st Class
4) Ohio
5) 3 years

By productive I mean that they serve a functin or purpose that actively helps us right now. Currently they are doing training drills to look tough on the off chance they are needed. The vast majority of our military is of this kind. They are all "just in case" instead of being active in fighting someone either in combat or keeping people in check.

I'm not saying that every person who isn't in active combat is "useless" but the sheer number of people we have employeed as well as the sheer number of bases exceed this need and then some.

You seem to know very little about the military if this is what you think.

I have a feeling you have family in the military. Either way what is the function of the bases in Germany? What are the functions of the massive number of bases here in the homeland that will have tends of thousands of recruits that are trained, do drills, and then are discharged after effectivley done nothing except be prepared? Obviusly we need a standing military but why do we need the overwhelming number of military personal that we have?

 

[Apex]

I have a feeling you have family in the military. Either way what is the function of the bases in Germany? What are the functions of the massive number of bases here in the homeland that will have tends of thousands of recruits that are trained, do drills, and then are discharged after effectivley done nothing except be prepared? Obviusly we need a standing military but why do we need the overwhelming number of military personal that we have?

My sister, two cousins, as well as myself, are all in the military. And only a small portion of those in the military have the job of only "being prepared". The rest of us have jobs in everything ranging from communications, intelligence, support, research, and even educational outreach and development (which is where I work).

 

[Monk Of Reason]

My sister, two cousins, as well as myself, are all in the military. And only a small portion of those in the military have the job of only "being prepared". The rest of us have jobs in everything ranging from communications, intelligence, support, research, and even educational outreach and development (which is where I work).

What branch if I may ask? And what kind of communications, intelligence and support did you do?

 

[Apex]

What branch if I may ask? And what kind of communications, intelligence and support did you do?

AF. And I said other people have jobs in those areas. I work in a research lab.