Gates Proposing Cuts in Military Budget - Page 3

01-06-11, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Third man back to trolling I see. Nice bait, make a strong, yet subtle personal attack at a persons core and station in life. His troll Fu is strong. I can has report post button?

Direct reply is trolling? I guess if it isn't what you want to hear.

Takeda Shingen · 01-06-11, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Third Man

How is that possible. You a Moderator, large contributor, etc.

How is it that I can possibly intimidate your standing on SubSim? Your like a Nancy Pelosi (safe district) of Subsim.

Ah, so you are back for personal attacks. That's fine, but I suggest that you cool off a bit.

01-06-11, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Ah, so you are back for personal attacks. That's fine, but I suggest that you cool off a bit.

How, pray tell, is that a personal attack? Is it not the truth? And a tribute to your value to Subsim?

I could question your position as being a personal attack. But for the reasons I stated it would make little or no difference.

Platapus · 01-06-11, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

you know, this morning I saw on a Chinese forum a rather interesting opinion: "Over there (America) they have all the committees and stuff, while for us one guy makes all the decisions. Democracy has a price, and surprisingly, its being payed by dictators"

I guess government costs could be further lowered.

Then that guy knows practically nothing about how China works or the structure of their governments.

nikimcbee · 01-06-11, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Hardly. Reagan was a big spender. Welcome back.

You mean Congress. He's just being bipartisan.

Gerald · 01-06-11, 08:02 PM

In order to understand what China stands for and what is said there, so it is an advantage of knowing their limitations, to a large extent, what you have to read between the lines to get a rough estimate, and the whole country is one big firewall, as the principle does not allow uploads (to phones, for example) which we are accustomed to do, the list is very long on what is happening, and that must be experienced live, to get 'some' insight..

gimpy117 · 01-06-11, 08:13 PM

Good Move. Our spending has been out of control. Sure, we still need to defend our nation with new technology...but we need to get away from writing blank checks.

Also, the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq were some of the least cost effective wars EVER. A lot of it had to do with all of the pork contracts given to friends of the administration. Like all of the cost plus contracts. There were stories of contractors not even doing their jobs building wells etc. and then just turning around and reporting "costs" and getting a cut on top of that.

And to suggest Reagen's spending collapsed the soviet union? They did it to themselves. The CCCP fell from within from political strife, and lost taxes because new regional governments refused taxes to moscow. The cold war lasted a lot longer than just the Reagen years...and to suggest that it was all due to him is farce.

Freiwillige · 01-06-11, 08:55 PM

Reagen didn't defeat the Soviets nor did the Soviets just magically implode. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Reagan couldn't help topple the Soviets if they were not already on shaky ground yet without Reagan's efforts they could have stabilized and survived. This is my belief. It was neither one or the other but a just right combination of both forces colliding at the right place and time in history.

And one can say what they want about Reagan's administration but he was the only president In recent times who actually shrank the government instead of bloating it.

Gerald · 01-06-11, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimpy117

Good Move. Our spending has been out of control. Sure, we still need to defend our nation with new technology...but we need to get away from writing blank checks.

Also, the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq were some of the least cost effective wars EVER. A lot of it had to do with all of the pork contracts given to friends of the administration. Like all of the cost plus contracts. There were stories of contractors not even doing their jobs building wells etc. and then just turning around and reporting "costs" and getting a cut on top of that.

And to suggest Reagen's spending collapsed the soviet union? They did it to themselves. The CCCP fell from within from political strife, and lost taxes because new regional governments refused taxes to moscow. The cold war lasted a lot longer than just the Reagen years...and to suggest that it was all due to him is farce.

With hindsight, one can easily say that it would have done, but since you mention new technology, so also reduces the risk to other things that could compromise national security, and the action will not compromise on

Takeda Shingen · 01-06-11, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

Reagen didn't defeat the Soviets nor did the Soviets just magically implode. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Reagan couldn't help topple the Soviets if they were not already on shaky ground yet without Reagan's efforts they could have stabilized and survived. This is my belief. It was neither one or the other but a just right combination of both forces colliding at the right place and time in history.

And one can say what they want about Reagan's administration but he was the only president In recent times who actually shrank the government instead of bloating it.

Yes, I'll agree about the shrinking of government. Reagan was a mixed bag; really good about the size of government and anti-drug programs, and and really bad about things like the deficit and free trade. I have no problem giving Reagan his due, but the concerted efforts of certain groups which seek to omit certain aspects of his admistration while exaggerating others in order to present him as some sort of political godhead is almost farcical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

You mean Congress. He's just being bipartisan.

Then I suppose that we should really be giving Tip O'Neill credit for defeating the Soviet Union.

gimpy117 · 01-06-11, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendor

With hindsight, one can easily say that it would have done, but since you mention new technology, so also reduces the risk to other things that could compromise national security, and the action will not compromise on

But whats worse? a total financial collapse or not having the new wizz-bang killing gadget? I'm all for military development. it's a necessary evil, but some of this spending has to be carefully watched. We can't just keep handing out blank checks to every arms developer and expect our money to be effectively spent.

Gerald · 01-06-11, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimpy117

But whats worse? a total financial collapse or not having the new wizz-bang killing gadget? I'm all for military development. it's a necessary evil, but some of this spending has to be carefully watched. We can't just keep handing out blank checks to every arms developer and expect our money to be effectively spent.

You are right, the military technology must be maintained, and there is one basic fact in each country's sovereignty, at least if you ask me, and so will occur even in the U.S.

gimpy117 · 01-06-11, 09:35 PM

must economies as well. A bankrupt county is a non effective fighting force.

Gerald · 01-06-11, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimpy117

must economies as well. A bankrupt county is a non effective fighting force.

It all hangs together, and the balance in the economy, must have room to grow, and then you have to have a government that has the will and strength to pursue what is relevant and important for the country

Tessa · 01-07-11, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

And one can say what they want about Reagan's administration but he was the only president In recent times who actually shrank the government instead of bloating it.

When Reagan was Governor of California he left office with the state having a budget surplus of several millions, the next Govenor (much to my horror since I live here) Jerry Brown was the next Governor and before his first term was up he'd already blew through the entire surplus and plunged the state into an equal amount of debt. Believe Reagan was quoted previously, but the truth behind it is the same "the cure to government, is less government".

One thing Reagan had was a real backbone, he wouldn't let anyone intimidate the US. He was a big fan of cruise missles, and wasn't afraid to have Battleships/Destroyers in the area launch attacks at those whom struck at us. He wasn't afraid of "polictial correctness" and used the armed forces when they were needed. Had Reagan been president in the 90's there's a good chance 9/11 wouldn't have happened, why? Because at one point Bin Laden was at a know location, coraborated by several reliable sources. All Clinton had to do was order the strike and 1 cruise missle would have brought him down. This chance happened right after the Lewinski scandal broke and didn't take the action he should have because it might have possibly make his political situation worse. "War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over." -- Gen William Tecumseh Sherman

01-06-11, 08:02 PM	#36
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	In order to understand what China stands for and what is said there, so it is an advantage of knowing their limitations, to a large extent, what you have to read between the lines to get a rough estimate, and the whole country is one big firewall, as the principle does not allow uploads (to phones, for example) which we are accustomed to do, the list is very long on what is happening, and that must be experienced live, to get 'some' insight.. __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie

01-06-11, 08:13 PM	#37
gimpy117 Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Kalamazoo, MI Posts: 3,243 Downloads: 108 Uploads: 0	Good Move. Our spending has been out of control. Sure, we still need to defend our nation with new technology...but we need to get away from writing blank checks. Also, the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq were some of the least cost effective wars EVER. A lot of it had to do with all of the pork contracts given to friends of the administration. Like all of the cost plus contracts. There were stories of contractors not even doing their jobs building wells etc. and then just turning around and reporting "costs" and getting a cut on top of that. And to suggest Reagen's spending collapsed the soviet union? They did it to themselves. The CCCP fell from within from political strife, and lost taxes because new regional governments refused taxes to moscow. The cold war lasted a lot longer than just the Reagen years...and to suggest that it was all due to him is farce. __________________ Member of the Subsim Zombie Army

01-06-11, 09:35 PM	#43
gimpy117 Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Kalamazoo, MI Posts: 3,243 Downloads: 108 Uploads: 0	must economies as well. A bankrupt county is a non effective fighting force. __________________ Member of the Subsim Zombie Army

01-06-11, 08:55 PM	#38
Freiwillige The Old Man Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Phx. Az Posts: 1,458 Downloads: 24 Uploads: 0	Reagen didn't defeat the Soviets nor did the Soviets just magically implode. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Reagan couldn't help topple the Soviets if they were not already on shaky ground yet without Reagan's efforts they could have stabilized and survived. This is my belief. It was neither one or the other but a just right combination of both forces colliding at the right place and time in history. And one can say what they want about Reagan's administration but he was the only president In recent times who actually shrank the government instead of bloating it.