Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

It would appear that some Republicans are actually acting in the manner there constituents expect from them:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703373404576148461616813694.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy
Speaker Boehner's state stands to some money/ jobs if this manages to get through the Senate too. I am just curious, did he actually want it to fail or did he want it to succeed, but for political reasons he had to vote the other way. I honestly believe that there may be enough new blood in DC to kill a few pet projects. Throw this together with the cancelation of the Army's Future Combat System in the past few years, the number of F22s being dropped to around 200 and the recently announced cancelation of the Marines' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle and the DOD is taking a lot of the money cuts. Now if they just get off their @sses on doing something with Medicare and Social Security and the future might start to look brighter.

You'll know things are about to get real (in the fire 'n' brimstone sense) when they start targeting the entitlements for cuts. They know doing so will cost them vast amounts of votes, so it would be a desperation measure. As a prelude to what, well...

Kill the military, kill the country. We don't need that. Just like back in 89-92 when we went to defend our oil interests in a foreign country...... I mean to defend our Allies interests in their oil , we went blind and with no real protection from ied's or rpg's on our vehicles. Then they wanted to p**sy foot around getting proper armour on our vehicles in iraq. Some things should not be cut, the military is one of those things. Have you seen the count of china's military.

I say if you want to cut spending and save money, close down Washington and move the congress to the local B&B. This will give local business the help they need and positively affect local economies. As for the many pet projects out there, "he who has the most money, makes the rules." I could've sworn I heard that somewhere. IMHO

davasmith wrote:Kill the military, kill the country. We don't need that. Just like back in 89-92 when we went to defend our oil interests in a foreign country...... I mean to defend our Allies interests in their oil , we went blind and with no real protection from ied's or rpg's on our vehicles. Then they wanted to p**sy foot around getting proper armour on our vehicles in iraq. Some things should not be cut, the military is one of those things. Have you seen the count of china's military.

I think I have a fairly good idea of what is going on with the Military and I am not saying that all programs should be cut. Some are or were just bad ideas. For example General Eric Shinseki decided that all Soldiers needed more "Esprit de Corps". The General decided the way to do that was give all Soldiers a beret. To issue 1 million+ soldiers 2 berets each at a cost of $9.95 apiece, cost the American taxpayers $20,000,000. I realize that that is just a drop in the bucket of the Trillions of dollars in the Federal budget, but that hat change cost the equivelant of 160 up-armored HMMWVs.

By the way, Operation Desert Shield was 1990 and Operation Desert Storm was 1991 (the First Gulf War). The IEDs started becoming a threat to U.S. troops during the Second Gulf War, after Iraq was invaded in 2003. I can't argue against the need for armor on all of our vehicles that have the potential to be deployed, in the past not having armor on them was considered an acceptable risk. just look at two of the vehicles from World War II with the biggest numbers being manufactured, the 2 1/2 ton truck and the Jeep. They were never armored and ran off of gasoline. Soon the Military will begin making some of the types of decisions they made after World War II, which of the multiple versions of MRAP will stay in service, which will be retired/ sold off/ scrapped. Meanwhile the M1 Abrams tank family and M2/M3 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles will get overhauled, as will the Marines' AAVP, so they can continue to serve.

davasmith wrote:Have you seen the count of china's military.

Or maybe the Chinese are playing us into spending ourselves into oblivion, like we did to the Soviets.

We are going to need a top notch and well equipped military when we stiff those countries that we owe money to.

Diomed wrote:

davasmith wrote:Have you seen the count of china's military.

Or maybe the Chinese are playing us into spending ourselves into oblivion, like we did to the Soviets.

I think when it comes to the Chinese Military, they are set up to be a massive defensive army. If you look at what they are buying/ building, all the money is being spent on weapons, not the capacity to move them. The Chinese can't invade anybody other than their neighbors because they don't have the capacity to move troops. That said, one good question would be "How would we respond to the invasion of Taiwan?"

Chasbo00 wrote:We are going to need a top notch and well equipped military when we stiff those countries that we owe money to.

When it comes to the debt, I was of the understanding that China, Japan and Saudi Arabia were the biggest holders. China will probably expect the U.S. to sit on the sideline if they invade Taiwan. The Japanese may just start cutting checks to the U.S., essentially contracting out their defense, or at least part of it. The Saudis will want more tanks, planes and other defense items.

grumpyMSG wrote:

davasmith wrote:Kill the military, kill the country. We don't need that. Just like back in 89-92 when we went to defend our oil interests in a foreign country...... I mean to defend our Allies interests in their oil , we went blind and with no real protection from ied's or rpg's on our vehicles. Then they wanted to p**sy foot around getting proper armour on our vehicles in iraq. Some things should not be cut, the military is one of those things. Have you seen the count of china's military.

I think I have a fairly good idea of what is going on with the Military and I am not saying that all programs should be cut. Some are or were just bad ideas. For example General Eric Shinseki decided that all Soldiers needed more "Esprit de Corps". The General decided the way to do that was give all Soldiers a beret. To issue 1 million+ soldiers 2 berets each at a cost of $9.95 apiece, cost the American taxpayers $20,000,000. I realize that that is just a drop in the bucket of the Trillions of dollars in the Federal budget, but that hat change cost the equivelant of 160 up-armored HMMWVs.

+1

Wasn't there a lot of hoopla over that move too because the beret had to be earned by certain soldiers, not just given out?

grumpyMSG wrote:

Diomed wrote:

davasmith wrote:Have you seen the count of china's military.

Or maybe the Chinese are playing us into spending ourselves into oblivion, like we did to the Soviets.

I think when it comes to the Chinese Military, they are set up to be a massive defensive army. If you look at what they are buying/ building, all the money is being spent on weapons, not the capacity to move them. The Chinese can't invade anybody other than their neighbors because they don't have the capacity to move troops. That said, one good question would be "How would we respond to the invasion of Taiwan?"

+1

Largeness in of itself is not a threat with a huge ocean between us. It's like asking if you have seen the how large the North Korean army is...technically it is huge, but practically it is not much more than a bunch of half starved slaves running around in old BDUs. That's not to say that there aren't special groups who are well trained and supplied, nor does it evaluate the risk to those right next door. They just can't project their power...for now.

Looking at the projected amounts of money this admin and others have already wasted, continue to do so, and with what we contribute to the Inernational Monetary Fund along with all the damn foreign aid I think we could be debt free and have Social Security/ Medicare both be solvent,, The people in DC have been playing fast and loose with our money for way too long.... If we're the most powerful nation in the world why are we carrying any debt at all? If anything IMHO we should be the ones getting the interest on loans to others

grumpyMSG wrote:It would appear that some Republicans are actually acting in the manner there constituents expect from them:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703373404576148461616813694.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy
Speaker Boehner's state stands to some money/ jobs if this manages to get through the Senate too. I am just curious, did he actually want it to fail or did he want it to succeed, but for political reasons he had to vote the other way. I honestly believe that there may be enough new blood in DC to kill a few pet projects. Throw this together with the cancelation of the Army's Future Combat System in the past few years, the number of F22s being dropped to around 200 and the recently announced cancelation of the Marines' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle and the DOD is taking a lot of the money cuts. Now if they just get off their @sses on doing something with Medicare and Social Security and the future might start to look brighter.

I'm quite familiar with the FCS issue. IMHO the Army holds part of the blame for seeing this program go away. Some very nice hardware and a radical departure with tactics and battlefield management. Poor program management though and they - from my perspective - had some issues managing FCS requirements and money against existing combat systems. Different from what many of us think the twits on the hill arent complete idiots and actually understand where money is spent and for what.

grumpyMSG wrote:I think when it comes to the Chinese Military, they are set up to be a massive defensive army. If you look at what they are buying/ building, all the money is being spent on weapons, not the capacity to move them. The Chinese can't invade anybody other than their neighbors because they don't have the capacity to move troops.

They're trying to stand up a naval aviation arm, I don't think that qualifies as being immobile or defensive. Stealth strike fighters also tend to say "offense", not defense. Maybe it's all just for when they reoccupy Taiwan. Maybe they have ambitions beyond that.

Some days I really do wonder if they'll try to collect the hard way when (not if) we default on our debt to them.