Saturday, November 29, 2014

Leftist democratian blows it on Pentagon budget cuts: to be expected given their ignorance.

When you have a bunch of non-serving, fringe-left pogues running a newspaper, their ignorance about military budget and personnel is, I suppose to be expected.

But in their most recent "taking a stab at a subject they don't understand" effort, they actually... stupidly... claim that additional military budget cuts "make sense."

As if.  Clearly, they don't know anything more about "sense" then they do "truth."

As it is now, The militaries of China, North Korea and Russia have around 4.2 million troops on active duty, with another 3.1 million or so reservists.  That doesn't include "para military," (Likely border police and the like which typically fall under military control.)  These militaries are in the midst of full-on expansion and modernization.

The United States, for now, anyway, has something on the order of  2.25 million active and reserve. Our military, even in the middle of multiple conflicts, is being reduced in size and capability to shift those funds to social programs.  And the rag is all about that.

We have been and continue to be in the middle of numerous armed conflicts that have the advantage of providing live combat training for our military, an advantage that, for the most part, the essentially Soviet block does not have.  And the US is doing all it can to find any pretense to kick our combat core troops out.

For issues as mundane as the number of tattoos you may have, you can actually find yourself barred from first promotion and then, reenlistment.

My guess is the number, variety and location of tats didn't make a hell of a lot of difference to any of our combat dead or wounded, or any of our combat arms troops actually getting their collective asses shot at now as I type this.

The non-serving slime at the democratian are, as they so frequently are, blissfully unaware of the practical realities of what the Armed Forces are and what they do.  Were they among the whining and sniveling as they expressed faux concern over op tempo and multiple tours of combat duty overseas?

How do further cuts in personnel reduce that problem?

Reduced personnel = reduced capability.

At a time when our enemies are expanding exponentially (And let's not forget ISIS, which is doing all it can to make our sacrifice of blood and treasure in the region utterly worthless... with the help of those simple idiots in the White House) we are shrinking in personnel and capabilities geometrically.

The rag quotes such unbiased sources as the "Stockholm International Peace Research Institute." This is but another example of the fringe=-leftists running our local lamestream show.

Unfortunately, we ARE the Superpower.  And I really wouldn't have it any other way, since the alternative is too horrific to contemplate:  having a superpower or two that really, really don't like us.

And how much would THAT cost?

And as the ignorant twat waffle who wrote today's screed from the Lazy C failed to address the question: how much more will that cost us down the road than maintaining our capability and force abilities today cost us?

In the long term, we find ourselves in a situation not unlike the idiocy of the post Jimmy Carter era.

We had to spend hundreds of billions to catch up to the status we should never had left.  And the ignorant declaration that this will be, in any way, "the best long-term scenario for the nation" shows the quick assumption of amnesia so beloved by the ignorant left: a military like the one that I was in, a military that had vehicles down for months because parts weren't available, a military understrength in dozens of job skills, a military where carrier battle groups are tied up at docks because we can't afford to refuel our carriers, a military where "make-do" becomes the institutional order of the day, where training is reduced, where systems fail and become obsolete because of a lack of logistics or new systems.

Of course none of those who cared enough to serve their country in uniform are more likely to advocate this kind of stupidity.  Like every other program they've babbled extensively on and know nothing about, they won't have to live with the outcomes of their stupidity.

Further cuts breed Russian and Chinese hegemony.  Lives will be lost because of this kind of stupidity.  And the moron writing this editorial doesn't care a lick, because he's far too much of a military ignorant to have the remotest clue about what needs to be done, and what costs we're going to have to pay when they're not done... in sons... and a few daughters... in the very near future.  And you can bet that none of those sons and daughters will be those of the people who write the tripe in today's democratian.

Clearly, the mentalities of the 1930's are once again infesting the left.  And with equal clarity, they learned nothing from their low-rent isolationism of that era.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
It's always better to maintain a capable military and stay in front then it is to play catch up from behind when the bullets start flying. But as we fall further and further behind, we'll see bus loads of the ignorants and hippies standing on the curb, holding up signs that say moronic nonsense like this:
The United States, as the world's lone superpower, frequently is a target of despots and frequently is called upon to protect nations that are unable to protect themselves.
That will never end as long as we exist.  And the sooner these clowns weaken our military, the shorter the amount of time required to end our existence.
Yet the questions become: How much is too much?
A great deal more than what we spend now.
What level of defense is required to ensure our safety?
Roughly twice the size of the shrunken military we have now... since you asked.
How extensive is our role as the world's police force?
Completely.  We have to do it because there's no one else who can. "Ask not for whom the bell tolls..."
And could some of that money be better spent elsewhere?
No.  But thanks for asking.

That is not to say we couldn't do a better job spending the money we have: of course we can.

But we're not just cutting the core of our combat experience: we're cutting systems and putting all of our eggs in a single basket on far too many occasions.

We should, for example, have long since begun a massive expansion of our Special Ops capabilities.

We should be investing heavily in our guerilla war-fighting capabilities, our ground support air and our missile defense systems.

We should be taking the steps needed to get the most effective bang for the buck.  And we should not have a coward as our commander-in-chief.

I don't expect leftist civilians to know or care about these types of things.  It would be nice, for once, if the Lazy C would bother to find out.

What they advocate is going to spill American blood.  Lots of it.

Won't be the first time, or the last, because they don't see their blood as being a part of the pool.

But it will be.  This kind of absurdity will make sure of it.

No comments: