Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

We Need to Strengthen Our Military. Thoughts?

We need a new military to meet the new threats of the 21st Century. Today's American military is the best in the world, but tomorrow's military must be even better. It must be stronger, faster, better armed.

Expand America's active duty forces.

Add 40,000 new soldiers to sustain our overseas deployments and prevent and prepare for other possible conflicts.

We need to create a "New Total Force," a military prepared to defeat any enemy, at any time, in any place.

We also need more military police, because public order is critical to establishing the conditions that allow peace to take hold.

We need the best possible equipment. We can't have a 21st century military unless we're using 21st century technology and preparing our forces for 21st century threats. That means educating, training, and arming every soldier with state-of-the-art equipment, whether body armor or weapons. It also means employing the most sophisticated communications to help our troops prevail and protect themselves in battle. Every soldier in every unit should have access to technology that can mean the difference between life and death.

Build and train new forces equipped with the most-sophisticated technology to specialize in finding, securing, and destroying weapons of mass destruction and the facilities that build them.

---

Thoughts?

EDIT: See my post below on who really wrote what I posted above.
Top | New | Old
beckyromero · 36-40, F
OK. Time for the truth to be told.

I didn't write all that. Neither did Donald Trump. Or any Republicans for that matter.

The Democratic Party did.

Part of the 2004 Democratic Party Platform and backed by its nominee, then Senator John Kerry.

Kind of shows how far the Dems have swung to the pacifist left on national defense in the past decade and a half.
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
You twist the facts. I never said a 41 yo mother would have to serve. I said that going forward all citizens starting at a certain age would be required to serve on some function. I was allowed to finish my medical training and then had to serve for 2 years. I propose the same. Would it cost more than current, I don't really know if so and how much. It isn't just mathematics. Historically it used to work. Yes some games the system, such as Mr trump, but most of us did get up to the plate and served. If there is a model, look at other countries.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@samueltyler2
You twist the facts. I never said a 41 yo mother would have to serve.

No, you never said that - and I didn't say you did.

Only that you said you want women to not be exempt. So [b]I said it as far as age was concerned[/b] - bringing up the question of constitutionality since those beyond military fitness requirements might still be able to serve in other ways.
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
@beckyromero there are non-military exemptions that existed in the past that would still if universal service requirements were developed. The advantages to all would be great. The financial costs would be worth it.

Why? The us spends more money on defense than the rest of the world
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@Insomniac100 Seems they're catching up. Just sayin'.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@Insomniac100 Yeah and this is 'defence' right?

If all those countries wake up one day and decide to invade America, you guys would still win, unless Belgium also got involved. 😜
Northwest · M
Context is the most important part of any debate, and the context is completely missing.

You're presenting selected text, from the 2004 Democratic Platform, picked from the section of military.

The context, at the time, was that we had engaged in multiple wars, without giving any thought to how we can safely emerge.

Each section of that platform, had a sort of an executive summary, something to frame the discussion. The military section, had the following executive summary:

We guarantee that you will always be the best-led, best-equipped and most respected fighting force in the world. You will be armed with the right weapons, schooled in the right skills, and fully prepared to win on the battlefield. You will never be sent into harm's way without enough troops for the task, and never asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace. You will never be given assignments which have not been clearly defined and for which you are not professionally trained.

The Democratic Party was not beating the drums of war, it was simply telling soldiers: if the USA puts you in harm's way, we will make sure you can succeed in your mission.
hlpflwthat · M
This was a lot easier to swallow in 2004. Despite our president declaring 'Mission accomplished' it was becoming clear that we had(again?) underestimated the size & scope of our invasion. We were not lacking militarily. We were very easily able to destroy Iraq - and many would tell you we have. They'd get no quarrel from me.

We were unable to lead. We were reactive - not proactive. We had no Marshall Plan at the ready. Instead, we watched like deer in the headlights as the riches & treasures of an ancient civilization and society were plundered and leveled.

More than a few of us feel we were not given a clear account of intelligence available going into Iraq. Many say that our intelligence was, in fact, ignored. Sound at all familiar?

And on the off chance we actually think we're not dedicating enough to defense, we'll be happy to learn that annual defense spending has climbed 50% since 2004.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@hlpflwthat
And on the off chance we actually think we're not dedicating enough to defense, we'll be happy to learn that annual defense spending has climbed 50% since 2004.

U.S. economy was about half the size in 2004 that it is now.

Not necessarily saying we need a huge boost, but the Russians and Chinese are spending much more, too.
AnneHoney · 41-45, F
Funny how one minute Putin is this dangerous guy, the next we should stop spending on the military. I just love discussing things with people that have zero knowledge and very little brain power.

Yes stop fixing our planes and ships who needs them. Stop paying soldiers, why should they get paid. Let ISIS take over, they are kind people who only want the best.

Let that little retard rocket man have nukes and missles and fire on Japan. We don’t need the Japanese anyway.
hlpflwthat · M
@beckyromero I'd love to see your source for that estimation - are you using something other than GDP? Who has claimed that today's GDP is twice what it was in 2004?
Mrblue · 36-40, M
more and more power to oppress and killing more innocent people. way to go.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@AnneHoney 😀 True.

I'd also bet you'd find a lot of platform statements from Dems and Reps for letting Puerto Rico become a state if the people there want to ... and then Congress has for decades set up roadblocks to a simple yes or no vote.
AnneHoney · 41-45, F
Only one thing politicians care about, reeelection which lines their pockets@beckyromero
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
Unfortunately, his base still loves him. I have no idea what will be enough.to.change their minds/votes. He already had one cabinet member who, I believe, took a deal to avoid jail for insider trading. Let us see how the Cohen deal pans out. Those are not even touching on any election violations!
Hanging2 · 56-60, M
Sigh...

Wouldn't it be great if diplomacy and a greater corroboration between people could occur so there would not be the need for this.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@samueltyler2
the degree of corruption, at an historical peak!

Not saying things are not good.

But read about Crédit Mobilier sometime.
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
@beckyromero yes, that was bad, as have been others, but, 1) I am talking about the president and his cabinet 2) this administration has only been there for 16 months and 3) the association with foreign governments and investors is probably unlawful as well.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@samueltyler2 Hopefully, he'll be just a one-termer.
melloquacious · 36-40, M
You must be some military contractor.
melloquacious · 36-40, M
agree with what?
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@melloquacious About what's written in the question.
melloquacious · 36-40, M
@beckyromero I see enough advertisements as it is.
Xuan12 · 36-40, M
Not to offend, but what you said is basically the status quo.
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@Xuan12 Ah, but I didn't say it. That was John Kerry's official Democratic party platform in 2004. Just wanted to point out how far left the Democrats have gone in a decade and a half.
Xuan12 · 36-40, M
@beckyromero Like I said, status quo. They haven't really changed that much in 2016 either. I don't really think either party in itself is a major threat to military funding, but rather the ever expanding debt and deficit. Eventually the ability to sustain it will just run out.
Graylight · 51-55, F
The U.S. military spends annually what the next 10 strongest militaries spend combined. Who exactly are we getting ready to fight?
Graylight · 51-55, F
@AnneHoney The real one. I'd give you directions, but I'm afraid you'd never find it.
AnneHoney · 41-45, F
The peace and love one with no bad people where we don’t need police or a military
Graylight · 51-55, F
@AnneHoney Name a justified War we have fought since World War II.
bookerdana · M
The 200 billion is not enough to sate our blood lust?
beckyromero · 36-40, F
@bookerdana
Until Wilson kept us out of war..hmm.

Wilson was far from the first president to wage war against a foreign power, and that's without even bringing up westward expansion at the cost of Native American tribes that started with the earliest administrations. And, besides, there were legitimate reasons to declare war on Germany.
bookerdana · M
Yeah,The Brit propaganda was more effective
[image/video deleted]
beckyromero · 36-40, F
beckyromero · 36-40, F
If Trump submits those proposals to a Congress controlled by Democrats in 2019, what do you think is the chance of its passage?
lorne13 · 61-69, M
how are trump's buddies in the weapons industry gonna make huge profits if nobody is killing anybody?
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
@lorne13 the cost of each tomahawk was estimated at between $500k and a million. That means over $100 million just in the cost of the ordinance. By all reports, the delay and telegraphing intent led to.the Syrian government's moving personnel and equipment out of harms way. Isn't it amazing that, if these were such vital institutional facilities, that there was not a report of a single loss of life? So what did we gain from that expense and risk?
AnneHoney · 41-45, F
@lorne13 just think how much FDRs buddies made because we entered WW2. What a waste. Learning to speak German would have been good for the British.
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
@AnneHoney that is one of the most reprehensible things I have ever read on SW or anywhere else! Do you think the US should have stayed out of WWII? We sure tried. Millions were killed by the axis powers. Civilians and combatants.
Nope! We’re not the worlds police. Wait is Mexico paying for it?
They could do more pushups
beckyromero · 36-40, F
I guess all the Trumpets are fast snuggled in their beds.

I thought they'd appreciate this post.
AnneHoney · 41-45, F
Great job bringing out the hypocrites.

Politicians will say anything on either side of any issue if they think it will bring them money or votes.

Polical parties move to any position. Just read quotes from Dems on immigration, it’s hilarious. To the right of Trump. Obama, Hillary, Schumer the whole bunch. Until they decided Hispanics were too big a voting group.

 
Post Comment