Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 23, 2016, 05:27:26 AM
Letters of marque are just contracts, contracts handed out to civilians so that they are acting under color of law. I support this also especially on our borders and coastal lands, they would be more effective in stopping illegals, contraband and drug smuggling if they were paid only by the assets they seize

Seized drugs and weapons would be too tempting. Privateers become pirates, permission or not.

Quote from: quiller on September 23, 2016, 06:19:00 AM
Seized drugs and weapons would be too tempting. Privateers become pirates, permission or not.

Cash, drugs and weapons are tempting to anyone,  Federal Agent or not. There would have to be guidelines and federal supervision to keep such units "honest" Seized cash assets and conveyances like boats, vehicles and airplanes would bring in the money for privateers, drugs & other contraband would be seized by accompanying BP/customs agent liaison officers working with each unit. Compliance with asset forfeiture laws, hearings etc would still be mandated and all such property would have to be awarded by the court so laws would be maintained much the same as they are now.

Quote from: s3779m on September 23, 2016, 03:29:22 AM
One habit that I have always found annoying is when others try to put words into your mouth, like this   "This is not enough for you?  "   You have no idea how I feel about any damn thing. If you want to dispute anything, stick to the facts or evidence given. You keep saying the military should be cut, we get that, I do not agree and there is nothing you have posted that proves it will not harm the military, or would somehow make us safer, NOTHING!

I don't think I'm putting words into your mouth, actually.  Conservatives who claim that Obama has gravely harmed the military and it now needs to be "rebuilt" are arguing so primarily because Obama hasn't expanded the military budget as much as they would have liked. 

Look at the links you posted.  They are all criticizing Obama for his supposed military budget cuts, which supposedly leave us "vulnerable".  By implication, this means that the current US military budget is, like I said, "not enough for you".

We've maintained a residual force of less than 10,000 troops and a massive embassy in Iraq but at the peak of the war, we had 170,000 troops engaged in active, boots-on-the-ground combat in that country. 

So Obama "ended" that war (more or less), the military budget went down slightly for two years after we ceased fighting a major war and has since been increasing again the last three years.  How exactly could this be considered "reckless" cuts to the military budget?

Would we have expected Truman to maintain the same military budget in the late 1940s as FDR did at the height of World War 2? 


Frankly, I don't even know what you mean by "harm the military".  The military is a tool by which we provide for our national security.  The only concern I have is whether we have the capacity to defend our nation against potential threat.

China spends the next most amount of money on their military after the United States.  And the United States spends seven times as much on our military as China does.  Furthermore, China is a crucial trading partner and there is no likelihood of them posing a military threat to the United States in the future.

So what the hell do we have to spend all this money for? 

Iran, which one of you cited as our biggest national security threat, spends 17 billion dollars per year on their military. 

Even Russia, who we are being told to fear, spends only 65 Billion dollars per year on their military. 

The United States spends ten times what Russia spends on their military.

The only other country that spends more on their military than Russia, other than the United States and China, is Saudi Arabia.  Saudi Arabia has been an ally for decades.  Saudi Arabia by the way is one of the most radical, fundamentalist and extreme Islamic nation in the world.  It exports far more terrorism, including the 9/11 hijackers, than any of the other middle eastern nations.

Saudi Arabia spends 81 Billion dollars per year on their military. 


Where are the threats to our national security that demand we spend nearly three quarters of a trillion dollars every year on our military?!  I can't understand how you rationalize this in your mind.


I'm not going to presume anything about who you listen to or where you read your news, okay?  However, I am well aware of the agenda behind a great deal of conservative media outlets.  Many of them have conflicts of interest with defense contractors and war profiteers.  Many have ties to the Israeli Lobby, or are financed by media tycoons with such ties.  Sheldon Adelson is a very prominent mogul who is an Israeli-Firster and has been heavily financing the propaganda campaign against Iran.

The articles you cited and the "arguments" (if you can call them that) put forward by most mainstream conservatives regarding military spending have absolutely nothing to do with our actual security needs and everything to do with subsidizing Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing and other contractors.  The Military Industrial Complex is not about rationally assessing our true security needs.  It's about getting tax payer money to build weapons, then agitating for wars to use them in.

Rodentfeet wants us defenseless. Pass it on.

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 24, 2016, 01:20:48 AM
I don't think I'm putting words into your mouth, actually.  Conservatives who claim that Obama has gravely harmed the military and it now needs to be "rebuilt" are arguing so primarily because Obama hasn't expanded the military budget as much as they would have liked. 

Look at the links you posted.  They are all criticizing Obama for his supposed military budget cuts, which supposedly leave us "vulnerable".  By implication, this means that the current US military budget is, like I said, "not enough for you".

We've maintained a residual force of less than 10,000 troops and a massive embassy in Iraq but at the peak of the war, we had 170,000 troops engaged in active, boots-on-the-ground combat in that country. 

So Obama "ended" that war (more or less), the military budget went down slightly for two years after we ceased fighting a major war and has since been increasing again the last three years.  How exactly could this be considered "reckless" cuts to the military budget?

Would we have expected Truman to maintain the same military budget in the late 1940s as FDR did at the height of World War 2? 


Frankly, I don't even know what you mean by "harm the military".  The military is a tool by which we provide for our national security.  The only concern I have is whether we have the capacity to defend our nation against potential threat.

China spends the next most amount of money on their military after the United States.  And the United States spends seven times as much on our military as China does.  Furthermore, China is a crucial trading partner and there is no likelihood of them posing a military threat to the United States in the future.

So what the hell do we have to spend all this money for? 

Iran, which one of you cited as our biggest national security threat, spends 17 billion dollars per year on their military. 

Even Russia, who we are being told to fear, spends only 65 Billion dollars per year on their military. 

The United States spends ten times what Russia spends on their military.

The only other country that spends more on their military than Russia, other than the United States and China, is Saudi Arabia.  Saudi Arabia has been an ally for decades.  Saudi Arabia by the way is one of the most radical, fundamentalist and extreme Islamic nation in the world.  It exports far more terrorism, including the 9/11 hijackers, than any of the other middle eastern nations.

Saudi Arabia spends 81 Billion dollars per year on their military. 


Where are the threats to our national security that demand we spend nearly three quarters of a trillion dollars every year on our military?!  I can't understand how you rationalize this in your mind.


I'm not going to presume anything about who you listen to or where you read your news, okay?  However, I am well aware of the agenda behind a great deal of conservative media outlets.  Many of them have conflicts of interest with defense contractors and war profiteers.  Many have ties to the Israeli Lobby, or are financed by media tycoons with such ties.  Sheldon Adelson is a very prominent mogul who is an Israeli-Firster and has been heavily financing the propaganda campaign against Iran.

The articles you cited and the "arguments" (if you can call them that) put forward by most mainstream conservatives regarding military spending have absolutely nothing to do with our actual security needs and everything to do with subsidizing Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing and other contractors.  The Military Industrial Complex is not about rationally assessing our true security needs.  It's about getting tax payer money to build weapons, then agitating for wars to use them in.

The articles posted show where and how the military has been harmed, a quick search can show more articles if you wish. You keep claiming we can cut 50% and stay safe, unfortunately the only way to prove that would be to do it and take the chance no one would take advantage. Kinda of like driving without a seatbelt.

Quote from: quiller on September 24, 2016, 03:43:31 AM
Rodentfeet wants us defenseless. Pass it on.

No, you've got it all wrong.  I want us to be defensive-minded and not offensive-minded.  Wouldn't you concede that the military spending necessary for maintaining bases in 170 countries, exporting arms to other countries, intervening into the internal affairs of other nations that haven't threatened us, and paying for the defense of others requires a great deal more money than simply being able to adequately defend the United States?

What on earth makes you think that spending anywhere near this amount of money on defense is necessary for our national defense? 

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 24, 2016, 07:00:59 PM
No, you've got it all wrong.  I want us to be defensive-minded and not offensive-minded.  Wouldn't you concede that the military spending necessary for maintaining bases in 170 countries, exporting arms to other countries, intervening into the internal affairs of other nations that haven't threatened us, and paying for the defense of others requires a great deal more money than simply being able to adequately defend the United States?

What on earth makes you think that spending anywhere near this amount of money on defense is necessary for our national defense?

Offhand I would say he has been in the services and you have not.   

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 24, 2016, 07:00:59 PM
No, you've got it all wrong.  I want us to be defensive-minded and not offensive-minded.  Wouldn't you concede that the military spending necessary for maintaining bases in 170 countries, exporting arms to other countries, intervening into the internal affairs of other nations that haven't threatened us, and paying for the defense of others requires a great deal more money than simply being able to adequately defend the United States?

What on earth makes you think that spending anywhere near this amount of money on defense is necessary for our national defense?

The money we WASTE on national defense includes every single one of the racist bisexual Obama's numerous social-readjustment programs pushing perversion on our military. (The present secretary of the army was specifically chosen because he's queer; Obama noted that early in the nomination process.)

The Navy will soon undergo mandatory training forcing acceptance of cross-dressing perverts and other sickos. Democrats continue their nauseating wish to do social experimentation on our military.

Skip that crap and buy another two or three war planes. Maybe a few nukes for Muslim holy sites.  Multiply that one program by everything ELSE (p)Resident Hussein has inflicted. It will add up and not one extra penny was spent.

Quote from: quiller on September 25, 2016, 02:53:31 AM
The money we WASTE on national defense includes every single one of the racist bisexual Obama's numerous social-readjustment programs pushing perversion on our military. (The present secretary of the army was specifically chosen because he's queer; Obama noted that early in the nomination process.)

The Navy will soon undergo mandatory training forcing acceptance of cross-dressing perverts and other sickos. Democrats continue their nauseating wish to do social experimentation on our military.

Skip that crap and buy another two or three war planes. Maybe a few nukes for Muslim holy sites.  Multiply that one program by everything ELSE (p)Resident Hussein has inflicted. It will add up and not one extra penny was spent.

you are 100% correct Quill.

I tried telling our little friend here that you have to have an accounting of what the budget money is being spent on before you can arbitrarily cut 40 or 50% or whatever his buffoonish sources are advocating. But only an insider can tell you about the waste and fraud or nonsensical programs the like of which you've identified, remember the $200 hammers and $350 toilet seats the pentagon was paying for?

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 26, 2016, 06:10:07 AM$350 toilet seats the pentagon was paying for?

Actually, we paid $10 for the toilet seat; we paid $340 for the hole.

Quote from: quiller on September 25, 2016, 02:53:31 AM
The money we WASTE on national defense includes every single one of the racist bisexual Obama's numerous social-readjustment programs pushing perversion on our military. (The present secretary of the army was specifically chosen because he's queer; Obama noted that early in the nomination process.)

The Navy will soon undergo mandatory training forcing acceptance of cross-dressing perverts and other sickos. Democrats continue their nauseating wish to do social experimentation on our military.

Skip that crap and buy another two or three war planes. Maybe a few nukes for Muslim holy sites.  Multiply that one program by everything ELSE (p)Resident Hussein has inflicted. It will add up and not one extra penny was spent.

Oh, come on.  You really think that the wasted money is being spent on "trans-gender sensitivity training" and things like that?  I agree that these programs are stupid, but that is not where the money is being spent.  At least "sensitivity training" doesn't actually kill anyone. 

I sure hope you were being facetious when you said "a few nukes for Muslim holy sites".  If your actual opinion is that a nuclear first strike specifically targeted to inflame religious tensions is permissible, then you are explicitly endorsing evil and pose a great danger to humanity.  In fact, ANY nuclear first-strike for whatever reason should be considered absolutely immoral.

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 26, 2016, 06:10:07 AM

you are 100% correct Quill.

I tried telling our little friend here that you have to have an accounting of what the budget money is being spent on before you can arbitrarily cut 40 or 50% or whatever his buffoonish sources are advocating. But only an insider can tell you about the waste and fraud or nonsensical programs the like of which you've identified, remember the $200 hammers and $350 toilet seats the pentagon was paying for?

The trouble with this is that "insiders" are likely to be a part of the military industrial complex and will be agitating for ever higher budgets and jobs programs building new weapons systems that are not truly necessary for our national defense.  This is how government departments tend to operate.  Spokesmen for special interests will never advocate that their budgets be reduced.  They'll use fear-mongering to scare people into increasing their funding.

It's important to remember that a lot of these military industrial complex programs are simply make-work government jobs programs.  People usually don't even argue that the weapons systems being built are necessary for our national defense.  They argue that these programs are good because they employ people and stimulate the economy.

I understand that some military spending is more valuable than others and when you slash spending, you will want to have an accounting of what the money is being spent on and eliminate the completely worthless stuff before you touch the more fundamental and important stuff. 

But all this money is being spent in support of a particular type of foreign policy.  How many missiles, planes and drones were built simply because we were fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq?  If we didn't invade and occupy Iraq for a decade, we obviously wouldn't need to have some many weapons systems built.

The money we spend constructing and maintaining foreign military bases could be slashed entirely if we decided to close them down and bring all the troops home.

If we can accept the principle of a non-interventionist foreign policy, then we can decide how much money is actually required for our national defense.  The most accurate assessments indicate we could be cutting more than 50% of our military budget if our foreign policy objectives were targeted at defense rather than nation-building and empire.

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 26, 2016, 01:23:59 PM
The trouble with this is that "insiders" are likely to be a part of the military industrial complex and will be agitating for ever higher budgets and jobs programs building new weapons systems that are not truly necessary for our national defense.  This is how government departments tend to operate.  Spokesmen for special interests will never advocate that their budgets be reduced.  They'll use fear-mongering to scare people into increasing their funding.

It's important to remember that a lot of these military industrial complex programs are simply make-work government jobs programs.  People usually don't even argue that the weapons systems being built are necessary for our national defense.  They argue that these programs are good because they employ people and stimulate the economy.

I understand that some military spending is more valuable than others and when you slash spending, you will want to have an accounting of what the money is being spent on and eliminate the completely worthless stuff before you touch the more fundamental and important stuff. 

But all this money is being spent in support of a particular type of foreign policy.  How many missiles, planes and drones were built simply because we were fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq?  If we didn't invade and occupy Iraq for a decade, we obviously wouldn't need to have some many weapons systems built.

The money we spend constructing and maintaining foreign military bases could be slashed entirely if we decided to close them down and bring all the troops home.

If we can accept the principle of a non-interventionist foreign policy, then we can decide how much money is actually required for our national defense.  The most accurate assessments indicate we could be cutting more than 50% of our military budget if our foreign policy objectives were targeted at defense rather than nation-building and empire.

Sounds like a whole lot of opinions without anything to back it up. You want to cut military spending. We get that. Do you have anything else to bring?

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 26, 2016, 01:23:59 PM

But all this money is being spent in support of a particular type of foreign policy. 

The money we spend constructing and maintaining foreign military bases could be slashed entirely if we decided to close them down and bring all the troops home.

Okay Last post on this thread then I'm gonna let it die. I'll slash the shit out of foreign aide spending and the MILITARY budget to Pakistan, Turkey and a whole hell of a lot of other countries that are supposed to be our allies before I sacrifice one dime that is supposed to go to the US Military I don't care if we spend fifty times more than Russia,  Lichtenstein or
Independant Samoa.

WE NEED TO STOP SENDING MONEY TO MUSLIM COUNTRIES TO PROP UP THEIR MILITARIES FIRST.

Then we need to stop ALL aide to certain countries, especially those in Africa and then those Damn Palestinians.

While we're at it we need to slash or eliminate our budget to the U.N.....all they do is take fact finding junkets and issue strong protests.

I can agree to withdrawals from Afghanistan, stop meddling in Syria and get the hell out of Libya, all are losing propositions. 

We still need to support Israel.

I'm done

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 26, 2016, 01:05:48 PM
Oh, come on.  You really think that the wasted money is being spent on "trans-gender sensitivity training" and things like that?  I agree that these programs are stupid, but that is not where the money is being spent.  At least "sensitivity training" doesn't actually kill anyone.

I chose the most stomach-turning. I noticed you didn't supply any examples to back up "but that is not where the money is being spent," because you obviously think catering to perverts and maladjusteds is the way we should go. I don't. Drum them out or return to Don't Ask Don't Tell, but do NOT glorify degenerates in our military.

QuoteI sure hope you were being facetious when you said "a few nukes for Muslim holy sites".  If your actual opinion is that a nuclear first strike specifically targeted to inflame religious tensions is permissible, then you are explicitly endorsing evil and pose a great danger to humanity.  In fact, ANY nuclear first-strike for whatever reason should be considered absolutely immoral.

But the 9/11 attack was okay, Cupcake? Whose side do you root for here, anyway? I want revenge, plain and simple, for the World Trade Center. I want the mussie scumbags terrified at all times of U.S. might. It is the only thing their primitive minds can understand, brute violence. I want them COMPLETELY discouraged from similar attacks in the future.

Instead, Hussein brings in Somalis and tongue-bathes other Mussies. Bah and humbug.