User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/28/2007 7:43:27 PM EDT
www.fred08.com/NewsRoom/PressRelease.aspx?ID=7afea273-a26b-467e-962e-ed4e5cfa52c4
Interesting. How many brigade combat teams do we have today? I'm sure it's well under 64. Also, what would happen with the extra 50,000 Marines he's proposing? Would we likely see the deactivated 9th Marines make a return, as well as possibly standing up one of the old WWII divisions that hasn't been in service since that war (5th and 6th Divisions)? One more thing. Wouldn't 4.5% of our GDP being put toward defense come pretty close to what Reagan did in the 80's? This topic was discussed here a couple of weeks ago. But there were a few new details I saw in that press release above I hadn't seen mentioned before, with a few specifics. But it basically sounds like Fred intends to take us back to the strength we were at prior to Bush Sr. and Slick Willie chopping the military to hell after the first Gulf War. Being my two top issues are the 2nd amendment and keeping our military strong, this only makes me wanna vote for Fred that much more. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2007 7:45:07 PM EDT
[#1]
The perfect candidate. Stay strong on the 2nd Amendment, strong on immigration, and build the military.
I love it! What year and month are the elections? Is it November 2008? If that is the Elections, I dont think I can vote.... I can root for him though! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2007 7:46:20 PM EDT
[#2]
Damn, that would more than double the US Army wouldn't it?
Going back to 20 divisions? 3 or 4 Marine Divisions? It will need a bill from Congress to do so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2007 7:47:36 PM EDT
[#3]
The only guy really who puts forth policies.
He has a good social security one and a good boarder policy spelled out in detail. Heck, what was it two debates ago the other candidates had to talk about Fred's social security policy, because they didn't have one of their own formed yet. Oh, and they still don't. Wish we could talk about actual solutions to our problems rather than hear Gay speeches at these debates. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2007 7:47:49 PM EDT
[#4]
He is the Best person for the job, I don't think he has enough momentum though... I kinda see him becoming Vice President... Behind Huckabee maybe....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2007 7:48:37 PM EDT
[#5]
I'm not really sure. I was thinking we had 400,xxx active duty troops at this time. So if I'm correct on that, it wouldn't double the size of the active army. But it would come pretty close. That should be enough to field 18 divisions. That was our strength in the early 1990's before the cuts started. Needless to say, 18 US Army divisions, 5 or more Marine divisions (counting the reserve 4th Division), the seperate brigades and with what reserves and guard units we have could definately kick some serious ass without being spread so thin like we are today. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2007 7:49:40 PM EDT
[#6]
So he's gonna cut taxes and increase spending. I can hardly wait.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2007 7:54:06 PM EDT
[#7]
You can cut taxes and increase military spending quite easily. Fred, unlike Bush, will seek to cut funding rather than increase it to every friggin social program that comes along. This is where Fred and Bush differ. Fred is a true conservative. He believes in getting the most bang for our buck. Defense in his mind gets priority over social bullshit. Bush claims to be a conservative. He does believe in cutting taxes. But he spends like a liberal. Dubya never saw a social program he didn't like. Fred don't play that way. Fred is not Bush. People need to realize this. Fred is much more like Reagan. His military plan proves that much. This is exactly the sort of thing Reagan would (and did) propose. When you combine Fred's super strong stance on the 2A and illegal immigration, he should be most arfcommer's wet dream come to life. LOL. Afterall, these are the 3 issues constantly debated on this forum. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2007 7:54:18 PM EDT
[#8]
there goes his chances at winning any elections.....
I'd like to know how he plans on recruiting all these additional members?......and the pay and benefits are already sufficient...my friend is making $90,000 a year to sit on the arizona border as an E-4...... how about we fix the pay disparities among military members for things such as being married or having kids (why should they get paid any more?) rather then crying that individuals who can't cut it in the real world aren't making enough income (not a jab at everyone but it's a shame that in the military you find those who joined for the right reasons, and those who joined because they had nothing else they could do with their lives)...... ---7 years enlisted here---- |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2007 7:55:19 PM EDT
[#9]
We spend more on social security right now than our entire Defense budget. Think about it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2007 7:59:42 PM EDT
[#10]
From wiki ...
Personnel in each service As of April 30, 2007 (women as of September 2006) Service Total Active Duty Personnel (Percent of Total) Army 519,471 (36%) Marine Corps 180,000 (13%) Navy 340,568 (23%) Air Force 340,921 (24%) Coast Guard 41,181 (3%) Total 1,426,713 (100%) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2007 8:00:20 PM EDT
[#11]
So if we go back to 89-90 force levels what mix of forces is it?
I mean today we have armored units and artillery units re-organized for Iraq deployments as essentially light cavalry in humvees. This is doable, but I question the wisdom behind it. When was the last time those units trained for their primary mission? If that mission isn't needed, then why not permenately re-role them and give them appropriate gear to function as light motorized infantry? In the 1990's there were some half brained ideas to create a seperate service, or specialty solely for "nation building." Back then I didn't think it made a lot of sense there are no low intensity conflicts, just low density conflicts. But there is a skill set that is distinctly used in "nation building" like training Indigs, lots of civil engineering and construction, MP type stuff. Strykers have been doing really well. They have the manpower for infantry type foot work as well as a wheeled battle taxi for mounted patrols. Big yes, but hell look at the MRAP's and such that are bigger than 5 ton trucks. And given the current situation motorized infantry would seem to be the type of unit prefered and most used. So back to the question. What is the appropriate mix of 15-20 divisions we add? How many heavy? How many medium (stryker BCT's) and how many light/para/helo? Return of the 7th Advanced Technology Division? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2007 8:05:58 PM EDT
[#12]
1/9, 2/9, 3/9 have all been reactivated already in our quest for 202K. They each are absorbed by the 3 infantry regiments on the east coast. What you would probably see is that our units would actually be flushed out at 100% T/O (table of organization) right now virtually no units are 100% of their T/O strength. You may also see the reintroduction of the 4th line company in the infantry battalions as we had in the past. Also reintroduction of deactivated artillery battalions, the 1 tank battalion we lost when we went to M1's, and additional Helo and fixed wing squadrons. I personally wouldn't want to see additional HQ's units added. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2007 8:10:02 PM EDT
[#13]
Go Fred!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2007 8:14:05 PM EDT
[#14]
I am not a big fan of light infantry, but it has it's place. Some areas aren't suited to operating heavy units. Vietnam was one environment. Tanks and armored vehicles were of course used there in significant numbers. But the rice paddies, mountains, heavy jungle and swamps limited their mobility and the areas they could effectively operate from. Another is the rugged mountainous areas of Afghanistan. In such areas, you have to rely heavily on guys who travel on foot or by helicopter.
OTOH, the hotspot for us the past 30 years and for what appears to be well into the future will be the Middle East. Much of that region is well suited to mounted infantry and tanks. So I think any increase in the size of our forces should go about 75% on the "heavy" side. Bring back the 2nd Armored Division, the 3rd Armored Division, the 5th Infantry Division (Mech), 8th Infantry Division (Mech) and the 24th Infantry Division (Mech). Bring back the 9th Infantry Division and equip them with a full compliment of Strykers, the vehicle they actually needed in the late 80's when they tested the concept of a motorized division. After that, I can live with whatever they decide. Bring back the 7th ID and make it an extra light division. And if there's still more troops to be left over, bring back a few of the seperate brigades, like the 11th or 199th and turn them into Stryker Brigade Combat Teams or whatever. Of course we can't forget logistics people either. Adding several hundred thousand new troops to active duty will make it necessary to also increase the size of the support elements to take care of them. Either way, I think the majority of any new combat forces should be heavy, either armored or mechanized. The majority of the rest should be equipped with Strykers. I like the idea of giving our guys some degree of protection and mobility. Strykers do that far better than boots and a ruck. Hehe. Of course that's just my opinion. I am no expert. So my opinion isn't worth shit unless some "been there, done that" types agree with me. But I think many of them will. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2007 8:14:52 PM EDT
[#15]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2007 9:07:33 PM EDT
[#16]
How the fuck is that? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2007 9:16:15 PM EDT
[#17]
Selling the confiscated narcotics? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2007 9:21:01 PM EDT
[#18]
 |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2007 8:58:29 PM EDT
[#19]
He has a kid and 6 yrs of service.....he told me all his different allowances, I'll try to list what I remember....I'm sure someone who has served their can verify this... $1300 a month per-diem $2xx family sep pay $2200 a month paid directly to his AZ landlord, whatever isn't used is lost and he doesn't keep $22xx a month basic pay $1200 a month for BAH w/dependents for his 'lease' in WI which is his daughter living with the grandparents.... and a couple hundred a month for BAS........ (on top of that the majority of these are tax free so he's probably making 100k when you consider the tax benefit)..... (these are not spot on but extremely close) |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2007 9:04:19 PM EDT
[#20]
I did my 10 years in the AF and even with a few TDYs I never saw anything like that. I'm calling my first B.S. until I see a copy of his LES. 
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2007 9:25:07 PM EDT
[#21]
alright, I'll call him and ask him for access to his mypay so I can prove a point on the internet....
-I'm sure someone on this site has served at the AZ border as a member of a different states National Guard and can thumbs up or thumbs down the info I just put out..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2007 9:33:49 PM EDT
[#22]
One interesting point that people have made more than once is that the requirement for running a 5,000,000 man military (or a 3,000,000 man military) would be competence at the top and on down. The stresses would show up incompetence fast. I tend to think that this is one of the reasons that Bush hasn't done this -- he knows what a lightweight he is. If we were to staff up this hard and fire people who couldn't hang, we wouldn't wind up with people like General Sanches, and hopefully we could get rid of obvious incompetents like Rumsfeld pretty fast too.
I think that this is a great idea. How to pay for it? Drop all Federal welfare programs (welfare, medicaid, and so on). You can leave SS and Medicare untouched and have plenty of money for this and a spending cut. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2007 9:40:28 PM EDT
[#23]
Hell... we may get our 600 Raptors after all.
Go Fred, Go!!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2007 9:41:10 PM EDT
[#24]
Neo-cons: For limited government EXCEPT when it comes to "national defense".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2007 9:46:01 PM EDT
[#25]
You're right... let's disband the military & call up the militia every time we are threatened.  I call dibs on an F-22 next time we go to war! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2007 9:46:16 PM EDT
[#26]
How about bringing back militias too along with some gun control repeals.
Call me crazy but I like our ground forces to stay small enough so that they can only hold a few large cities in a crisis. Id rather locals not answerable to the DOD be the ones shoring up in an emergency. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2007 9:53:31 PM EDT
[#27]
Tell me about it, yet a lot of folks around here seem to be down on him ("Neo-Con" this, and "NWO" that). Over the years a lot has changed concerning the views & opinions expressed on these forums, and I can't say that I like or can explain them. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2007 9:55:32 PM EDT
[#28]
So was Ronald Reagan a neo-con then? Just curious. I want us to cut Welfare and Social Security... Cut as in delete. Kill just about every other entitlement program while we're at it. Redirect the money that would have gone to Social Security to the military, because a blind man knows we'll need it over the next few decades. The rest from cutting welfare and other entitlements? Just cut it out of the budget and save some debt there. That isn't "Neo-Con", that's Reagan foreign policy meets Libertarian domestic. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2007 9:55:59 PM EDT
[#29]
China, Russia, and much of the Muslim world just LOVE the way you think!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2007 9:59:37 PM EDT
[#30]
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. – James Madison (1751-1836), 4th U.S. President
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2007 10:03:34 PM EDT
[#31]
I agree with his Fred's current 'stated' positions. I just don't like his background and excuses for who he's worked with in the past. People with integrity never sacrifice their values for $$$ as Fred has shown multiple times he's willing to do. He still may earn my vote but only due to a lack of anything better.... |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2007 10:05:06 PM EDT
[#32]
Strictly talking about within CONUS. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2007 10:05:13 PM EDT
[#33]
I hope this includes buying more helicopters.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2007 10:06:21 PM EDT
[#34]
So by that he meant it would be our own soldiers shooting us first? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2007 10:07:26 PM EDT
[#35]
ETA: ICBM ring any bells? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2007 10:12:04 PM EDT
[#36]
No, he knew that with every 'war,' the 'leaders' call for the public to sacrifice their liberties/money/etcetera, and that they are never fully restored each time... as has been the case. Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few … No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. – James Madison The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. – Thomas Jefferson There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation. – James Madison Where is it written in the Constitution, in what section or clause is it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battle in any war in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it? – Daniel Webster It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world. The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. – George Washington I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. – Thomas Jefferson (1823) America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She well knows that by enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom. – John Quincy Adams (1821) |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2007 10:14:57 PM EDT
[#37]
It makes more sense than raising taxes and increasing spending. Cutting taxes increases revenue; been proven time and again. Raising taxes stifles the economy. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2007 10:16:29 PM EDT
[#38]
Don't you just love how so many here love this stuff and aspouse it, at least until Ron Paul says it anyway
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2007 10:19:44 PM EDT
[#39]
Even before RP- they all talk about how 'we need to get rid of the f'ers and restore the Constitution!' Until you bring up something that is actually in line with the Constitution... then it's 'You isolationist idiots- that was a bad idea back then, and it's a bad idea, now!' They hate the 'times have changed' argument about the 2A when the antis use it, but love it if it means they can go around 'defending the country.'
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2007 10:48:50 PM EDT
[#40]
As long as they are black. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2007 11:00:12 PM EDT
[#41]
Those numbers essentially ARE the Reagan-era military... Both the troop strengths and the budget percentage... Go Fred... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2007 11:08:43 PM EDT
[#42]
That IS crazy... Because your 'militia' is not going to be able to fight in Iraq, or any of the other places we need them to go, all of which are 'not within the borders of the USA'... If we ever have to use the military within our borders for anything but disaster releif, that's a giant cup of FAIL They are not going to be able to maintain the core skills to operate modern combat equipment (this is not 1920... Driving trucks with 'TANK' written on the sides areound a field is NOT an acceptable way to train our tank crews)... You are not going to be able to keep fighter & bomber pilots proficient by having them fly Cessnas on the weekends.... And finally, light troops with small arms (the most a militia could ever be) are just cannon fodder in modern war... In any possible 'invasion' scenario (since they can't deploy, that's when they'd see combat) they would just get shot to hell by properly equipped regular enemy forces... OH WAIT, that's what DID happen in 1812 - at least for the ones who actually bothered to SHOW UP TO FIGHT.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2007 11:11:43 PM EDT
[#43]
100% useless unless we get nuked first... It's been proven throughout the 90s that enemy forces are NOT scared of the Air Force enough for bombing (conventional or nuclear) to be an effective deterrent against anything BUT nuclear attack... Only an invasion or credible threat of such makes them wise up and play right (see Lybia post OIF... They'd been bombed, they'd been threatened, they''d been sanctioned... We invade one of their 'buddies', and all the sudden it's 'WE GIVE UP - TAKE OUR WMD SHIT!!!'... Hmm... |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2007 11:17:22 PM EDT
[#44]
Reality check, LC... The Constitution does not specify or dictate ANY SPECIFIC foreign policy... It allows isolationisim OR interventionisim, basically at the discretion of the government in power at the time... Congress has to re-authorize the Army every 2 years... And the President, within that authorization can use them for whatever he wants beyond quartering it's forces in civillian homes during time of peace, Constitutionally speaking (as the Constitution grants him the power of CINC, and does not restrict it)... But go ahead and keep posting those quotes as if they are part of the Constitution.... THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'TIMES CHANGE' IN REFERENCE TO THE 2ND IS THAT THE 2ND IS A WRITTEN PART OF THE CONSTITUTION... THE QUOTES YOU KEEP POSTING ARE JUST STATEMENTS BY THE AUTHORS, WHO WERE AT THE TIME IN CHARGE OF A WEAK (NEAR HELPLESS, ACTUALLY) AND GLOBALLY IRRELEVANT NATION! Since these quotes have no force of law, and are obviously obsolete in the modern USA, they should be taken for what they are - a piece of our history, and a reminder of a state of existence we NEVER want to have again (international impotence).... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2007 11:19:53 PM EDT
[#45]
The active duty military isn't for use CONUS... We are not in existence to put out forest fires, fix levees, quash riots & chase drug-smugglers/border-jumpers... Do we do these things? Well, the National Guard does - and occasionally AD gets involved with SOME of them... But that is not why we are here... We are here to implement US foreign policy overseas... |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2007 11:53:06 PM EDT
[#46]
Yup, just fire up the magic money printing press and go on a spending spree. I love it! Spending more money than is taken in as taxes leads to inflation which is killing the value of our dollar. When the dollar loses its value it is the same as a tax. It is a quiet tax. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2007 1:06:07 AM EDT
[#47]
SHHHHH! the stock market is up so Bush's tax cuts and spending policies must be working.....the dollars increased monetary circulation has 'NOTHING' do do with that or its weakening value against foreign currencies.... |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2007 1:13:08 AM EDT
[#48]
Why do we need 1,000,000 ground troops?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2007 1:36:38 AM EDT
[#49]
Because it's good for the economy, stoopid!  No, seriously. We need it for "I'm sorry I ran you over, I didn't I raqognize you." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2007 1:47:37 AM EDT
[#50]
In bold is bullshit 
|
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
