- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 3/17/17 at 11:49 am to GeauxxxTigers23
Abolish the Marine Corps and re-brand them all as "Naval Infantry".
No more USMC, because we will call them "Naval Infantry" OR if they prefer, "Sea Soldiers".
WE'll save money because the Naval Infantry will have the same uniforms as the Navy or Coast Guard.
No more USMC, because we will call them "Naval Infantry" OR if they prefer, "Sea Soldiers".
WE'll save money because the Naval Infantry will have the same uniforms as the Navy or Coast Guard.
This post was edited on 3/17/17 at 11:50 am
Posted on 3/17/17 at 11:50 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
Did not know that about the 2 year limit on raising money for an Army.
Most don't; every other year Congress has to reauthorize our military
Posted on 3/17/17 at 11:50 am to GeauxxxTigers23
Posted on 3/17/17 at 11:50 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
You can't complain about military spending and then bash Trump for wanting other NATO nations to pony up.
You do realize that the US could cut 1/3 of their military spending and still meet NATO obligations, right?
Posted on 3/17/17 at 11:51 am to Champagne
quote:No we can still call them Marines thank you very much. But yes, in theory they should be nothing more than naval infantry and a branch of the Navy.
Abolish the Marine Corps and re-brand them all as "Naval Infantry". No more USMC, because we will call them "Naval Infantry" OR if they prefer, "Sea Soldiers".
Posted on 3/17/17 at 11:51 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Because I don't support cutting military spending for the sake of cutting military spending. I support a massive change in our foreign policy that will result in a massive decrease in military spending.
Massive change in foreign policy is coming. I call it toilet politics. Fire off a tweet about other countries while taking your morning dump.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 11:52 am to GeauxxxTigers23
In a vacuum I have no issue with military spending. However, I don't really care for the proposed increase in military spending relative to the cuts at the state department. Would rather have a well funded and strong diplomatic presence to avoid having to use those expensive planes and bombs.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 11:52 am to Eurocat
quote:
For one, we have told Japan that we do not want them to.
This was US policy (still is).
The Japanese constitution drawn up by the US was never meant to be eternal a d was to be eventually replaced.
quote:
We also wanted to keep Germany weak so we have more or less the same deal there, but now in one fell swoop Trump starts complaining about, it is insane and unfair.
The problem here is none if those 2 are spending 2% which Germany is REQUIRED to.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 11:53 am to Bench McElroy
quote:Of course, but then we wouldn't be able to make up for all of Europe's shortcomings in military spending that allow them to spend their money of socialist programs because they know daddy will come save the day if they ever actually get in a fight.
You do realize that the US could cut 1/3 of their military spending and still meet NATO obligations, right?
Posted on 3/17/17 at 11:53 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
No we can still call them Marines thank you very much
No, we can't, and I'll tell you why. You see, the name "Marines" is a French word, well, at least the origin of the word is French, and, it's an insult because we, as Americans, hate the French language.
So, it's either Naval Infantry or Sea Soldiers OR Soldiers of the Sea. Surely you agree because my logic is impeccable.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 11:54 am to Bench McElroy
But we could not meet our Asian obligations.
The reason America kicks arse in so many things is that we are - America.
I mean sometimes it is said as a joke on this boad but there is a lot of truth to the sentiment 'Murica damnit.
The world always wants (or will get, want it or not) a world leader. We have had the Brits, the French, the Dutch. Now it is us and to give it up so we can build a few airports and cut a few taxes is insane asylym level insanity.
The reason America kicks arse in so many things is that we are - America.
I mean sometimes it is said as a joke on this boad but there is a lot of truth to the sentiment 'Murica damnit.
The world always wants (or will get, want it or not) a world leader. We have had the Brits, the French, the Dutch. Now it is us and to give it up so we can build a few airports and cut a few taxes is insane asylym level insanity.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 11:54 am to GeauxxxTigers23
Let's not. The reason we never cut spending on anything is because we compartmentalize it in to these partisan categories and then everyone defends their favorites to the point of inaction.
We have a spending problem. Identify what percentage of spending we need to cut and then apply that percentage to every category.
We have a spending problem. Identify what percentage of spending we need to cut and then apply that percentage to every category.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 11:55 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Of course, but then we wouldn't be able to make up for all of Europe's shortcomings in military spending that allow them to spend their money of socialist programs because they know daddy will come save the day if they ever actually get in a fight.
I'm glad that the new POTUS is trying to push the rest of NATO into spending their fair share on military defense.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 11:55 am to Champagne
Posted on 3/17/17 at 11:55 am to GeauxxxTigers23
How about this:
*Eliminate the current 5 branch structure (I'm counting the Cost Guard)
*Make it 1 "armed forces" with 4 subordinate branches (combine Navy & Cost Guard)
*Create more super bases thus eliminating a ton of other bases
This eliminates a ton of duplication of effort and spending and overall CinC would have access to everything he needs to fight....yeah he basically owns everything
*Eliminate the current 5 branch structure (I'm counting the Cost Guard)
*Make it 1 "armed forces" with 4 subordinate branches (combine Navy & Cost Guard)
*Create more super bases thus eliminating a ton of other bases
This eliminates a ton of duplication of effort and spending and overall CinC would have access to everything he needs to fight....yeah he basically owns everything
Posted on 3/17/17 at 11:55 am to Eurocat
quote:Lack of funding isn't the reason for the military's readiness problem. I find that article disingenuous at best, at least in regards to the army's brigades not being ready. Our aviation assets are certainly in disrepair though. But that has more to do with misallocation of funds.
To eliminate this. LINK
Posted on 3/17/17 at 12:00 pm to Kino74
NATO countries are required to spend 2% only after 2024, not yet. This was settled in the 2014 Wales summit.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 12:00 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
One of the best reasons to reduce the military? Because when you have a large standing army you always find a reason to use it. It becomes a surrogate form of statesmanship.
Posted on 3/17/17 at 12:04 pm to Wolfhound45
Exactly. It's a self-licking ice cream cone man.
We have all the wars to fight and be ready to fight! We need a bigger military!
We have this huge military! We're the only ones who can face this imminent threat!
We have all the wars to fight and be ready to fight! We need a bigger military!
We have this huge military! We're the only ones who can face this imminent threat!
Page 2 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News