Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 4/7/2006 9:58:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2006 9:59:48 AM EDT by COLE-CARBINE]
Defense Department Seeks $5.2 Billion for Special Operations Forces
(Source: US State Department; issued April 6, 2006)



WASHINGTON --- The Bush administration has requested $5.2 billion from Congress to fund a Department of Defense expansion of the U.S. Special Operations Command, an essential element in winning the global War on Terror, says Thomas O’Connell, assistant secretary of defense.

In prepared testimony for an April 5 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, O’Connell said that the 27 percent increase from the previous year’s budget request was essential to expand America’s “capability and capacity to conduct low-visibility, persistent presence missions and a global unconventional warfare campaign.”

"We are faced by interacting networks … of radical extremists who inflict terror with minimal concern for their innocent victims," he said. "These networks will migrate to places where they can survive, operate and grow.”

In the war against terrorism, Army Special Forces, Navy SEALs (sea, air and land special forces) and other elite units have demonstrated their unique skills in Afghanistan, Iraq, Colombia, the Philippines and elsewhere, O’Connell said. They have served as “effective counter-networks to monitor, isolate, disrupt and destroy hostile elements,” by working with allies to bring terrorist leaders to justice and deny them safe havens.

O'Connell also said the requested funding is aimed at meeting the Quadrennial Defense Review’s long-term objective to expand and transform the U.S. military’s use of special operations forces.

According to O’Connell, the funding increase would be used for:

-- Recruitment, training, and deployment of more than 1,300 new special operations personnel;
-- Maintaining sustained operations in areas where terrorist networks are operating;
-- Investments in aircraft to support operations;
-- Training and equipping foreign military forces to improve planning and execution of counterterrorism operations; and
-- Support of the newly created Marine Corps Special Operations Command.

O'Connell told the committee that the funding has implications for the nation’s defense because many tactics and techniques developed by special forces are subsequently adopted across the services. "Our special operators have often been the innovators for the larger military," he said.

Shifting special operations forces from reactive deployment for regional contingencies "to being a global, proactive and pre-emptive force," he said, is “a key evolution in how we must conduct our security affairs in the future."


Link Posted: 4/7/2006 10:04:20 AM EDT
Money well spent IMO.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 10:11:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Money well spent IMO.



Agreed...I really liked this line from the article......



Shifting special operations forces from reactive deployment for regional contingencies "to being a global, proactive and pre-emptive force," he said, is “a key evolution in how we must conduct our security affairs in the future."


Link Posted: 4/7/2006 10:14:10 AM EDT
If they dont spend it on them they will just spend it on a rain forest project in the middle of Iowa or the waterless toilet.

I say give'em 10 Billion!
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 3:04:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Money well spent IMO.



Agreed...I really liked this line from the article......



Shifting special operations forces from reactive deployment for regional contingencies "to being a global, proactive and pre-emptive force," he said, is “a key evolution in how we must conduct our security affairs in the future."






Isn't that what they are SUPPOSED to be for?

Sounds like a good use of some money to me. When fighting an unconventional war its best to use unconventional forces IMO
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 3:06:13 PM EDT
What?! No keyboards?
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 3:16:05 PM EDT
Flight IIA DDG in the background there.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 3:26:49 PM EDT
I understand why the Founding Fathers did not want a standing army.
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 11:34:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Belloc:
I understand why the Founding Fathers did not want a standing army.
www.georgiapeace.org/USvsWorld2004Top25.gif



You know why that number is so high?

Because there's 5 Chinese for every one of us. And they lie about their military spending.

I really want to say something else to you now, but the C of C forbids it.
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 11:43:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Money well spent IMO.


+2 especially if we get more Disovery channel episodes of them. I've seen class 234 too many times.
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 11:45:27 AM EDT
Looks like someone needs a case of Kleenex.


This is certainly money well spent, if the idiots in Congress don't deny the funds. I only hope that expanding SOCOM won't have a negative effect in so far as them becoming more conventional or getting lax with their standards.
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 11:52:20 AM EDT
that military spending number is wrong.
www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig

Or, if you consider that the US has more money than anyone else, you'd rather see military spending as percent of GDP.
www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_per_of_gdp
Per dollar of GDP
www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig_pergdp
and finally per capita
www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig_percap

I think % GDP is most accurate without actually doing any work here, as it shows the value (in terms of the remaining economy) of the military spending. In this case, if we're overspending, than many nations out there are completely loony.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 9:47:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Andreuha:
that military spending number is wrong.
www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig


Only if by "wrong" you mean it is low.

"The U.S. military budget request by the Bush Administration for Fiscal Year 2007 is $462.7 billion. (This includes the Defense Department budget, funding for the Department of Energy (which includes nuclear weapons) and “other” which the source does not define. It does not include other items such as money for the Afghan and Iraq wars—$50 billion for Fiscal Year 2007 and an extra $70 billion for FY 2006, on top of the $50 billion approved by Congress.)

For Fiscal Year 2006 it was $441.6 billion
For Fiscal Year 2005 it was $420.7 billion
For Fiscal Year 2004 it was $399.1 billion.
For Fiscal Year 2003 it was $396.1 billion.
For Fiscal Year 2002 it was $343.2 billion.
For Fiscal Year 2001 it was $305 billion. And Congress had increased that budget request to $310 billion.
This was up from approximately $288.8 billion, in 2000."

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp#USMilitarySpending
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 9:51:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/9/2006 9:52:11 AM EDT by Belloc]
Originally Posted By ASUsax:
You know why that number is so high?

Because there's 5 Chinese for every one of us.

Yeah, that's it, Bush went to Congress and said that we need to spend almost half trillion on defense because there are 5 chinese for every American.

I really want to say something else to you now, but the C of C forbids it.

Buy a pair.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 9:54:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Belloc:
I understand why the Founding Fathers did not want a standing army.
www.georgiapeace.org/USvsWorld2004Top25.gif



Costs of freedom at least till the next civil war kicks off.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 9:55:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
Money well spent IMO.



+1

Whatever they want.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 9:58:33 AM EDT
5 billion and change for special forces is a bargin.

We do however, spend to much on the Military, and to much on everything else.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 9:59:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/9/2006 10:00:49 AM EDT by raven]

Originally Posted By Belloc:
I understand why the Founding Fathers did not want a standing army.
www.georgiapeace.org/USvsWorld2004Top25.gif



That chart doesnt account for a lot of things. Like:

1. Our budget is bigger thanall other countries, our GDP is the largest in the world. Could our huge GDP be a factor in having such a huge defense budget?

2. Who is called upon to solve the world's crises through it's military? The UN? No, us.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 9:59:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By Belloc:
I understand why the Founding Fathers did not want a standing army.
www.georgiapeace.org/USvsWorld2004Top25.gif



Costs of freedom at least till the next civil war kicks off.



In our current war, I'd say it is more about the costs of security, than the costs of freedom.

I'll be frank - it is hard for me to get excited about 5.2 billion dollars being spent by the .gov
That money comes from one place - my pockets.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 10:02:52 AM EDT
Huh? The Japanese spend more than the UK? What on earth do they buy, considering that as far as I know it, the Japanese only have a "self defense force" and not all that much in terms of a navy or airforce. Then again, what do I know. Still, it's odd that they would spend that much and seemingly have so little.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 10:03:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE: Defense Department Seeks $5.2 Billion for Special Operations Forces (Source: US State Department; issued April 6,
You know why it's great to be an American? If we had to spend the money, we could. We have an awesome economy and plenty of smart and hard-working people (who are here legally, ha ha, had to get that in there).

But in the meantime, that press release is probably a propaganda piece for the consumption of certain "uncooperative and undesirable" nations and organizations.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 10:05:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By Belloc:
I understand why the Founding Fathers did not want a standing army.
www.georgiapeace.org/USvsWorld2004Top25.gif



Costs of freedom at least till the next civil war kicks off.



In our current war, I'd say it is more about the costs of security, than the costs of freedom.

I'll be frank - it is hard for me to get excited about 5.2 billion dollars being spent by the .gov
That money comes from one place - my pockets.




I would like to cut agencies that spend such as....................................

IRS
BATFE
FCC
DOE
EPA

and on and on and on their by cutting spending. I have no problem with my taxes being sent to the military I just wish they could pennypinch more on contracts thus making better use of it. I think the government should provide roads, military, police, and representation here and abroad. Nothing else.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 10:08:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By A_G:
Looks like someone needs a case of Kleenex.


This is certainly money well spent, if the idiots in Congress don't deny the funds. I only hope that expanding SOCOM won't have a negative effect in so far as them becoming more conventional or getting lax with their standards.


The idiots in congress won't deny it,, they should, cause they sure as hell aren't going to cut spending elsewhere first. That's $5 billion more we as taxpayers will be paying interest on to China or Japan.

Don't you people realize the US as a country has SO much debt (much of it to foreign goverments) that there is NO WAY we can ever pay it off?
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 10:08:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/9/2006 10:10:32 AM EDT by raven]

Originally Posted By S30V:
Huh? The Japanese spend more than the UK? What on earth do they buy, considering that as far as I know it, the Japanese only have a "self defense force" and not all that much in terms of a navy or airforce. Then again, what do I know. Still, it's odd that they would spend that much and seemingly have so little.



The Japanese have observed our political weakness on Iraq and concluded they can't really depend on us for their defense.

Because they're such close allies, they can buy our best stuff like Aegis destroyers and F-22 raptors. And that stuff is expensive.

Japan's neighbors are a lot dodgier than the UK's. That's why they spend more for defense.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 10:09:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By S30V: Huh? The Japanese spend more than the UK? What on earth do they buy, considering that as far as I know it, the Japanese only have a "self defense force" and not all that much in terms of a navy or airforce. Then again, what do I know. Still, it's odd that they would spend that much and seemingly have so little.
The Japs buy top notch US-derived equipment and add home-brew equipment of their own. They really have some good equipment. We just keep bagging on them because we did beat them in WW2. But we're buddies with them now and they know US equipment WORKS!

When the Japs look across the water, they see Chinese commies. When the Brits look across the water, they see French socialists. Realpolitik reflected in their military budgets.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 10:16:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl: and on and on and on their by cutting spending. I have no problem with my taxes being sent to the military I just wish they could pennypinch more on contracts thus making better use of it. I think the government should provide roads, military, police, and representation here and abroad. Nothing else.
The services 'gubment delivers to the people should be basic infastructure, law enforcement, and military. Everything else is Socialism or a waste of taxpayer money.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 10:31:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Belloc:

"The U.S. military budget request by the Bush Administration for Fiscal Year 2007 is $462.7 billion. (This includes the Defense Department budget, funding for the Department of Energy (which includes nuclear weapons) and “other” which the source does not define. It does not include other items such as money for the Afghan and Iraq wars—$50 billion for Fiscal Year 2007 and an extra $70 billion for FY 2006, on top of the $50 billion approved by Congress.)




The DOE does a lot of other things besides nuke weapons. And they only handle production and cleanup. You don't see DOE boys at a missile base. Tossing DOE in with the DOD is, well, wrong.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 10:33:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Belloc:
I understand why the Founding Fathers did not want a standing army.
www.georgiapeace.org/USvsWorld2004Top25.gif



The only regret I have about those numbers is the fact we don't have another 420 billion for defense spending.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 10:39:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/9/2006 10:46:08 AM EDT by S30V]

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By S30V:
Huh? The Japanese spend more than the UK? What on earth do they buy, considering that as far as I know it, the Japanese only have a "self defense force" and not all that much in terms of a navy or airforce. Then again, what do I know. Still, it's odd that they would spend that much and seemingly have so little.



The Japanese have observed our political weakness on Iraq and concluded they can't really depend on us for their defense.

Because they're such close allies, they can buy our best stuff like Aegis destroyers and F-22 raptors. And that stuff is expensive.

Japan's neighbors are a lot dodgier than the UK's. That's why they spend more for defense.



This is the first I've heard of them buying Aegis destroyers and F-22's. Interesting. I am not calling BS, by no means at all, but still, could you perhaps provide a source because this is indeed interesting, since this would mean the rebirth of a very powerful Japanese military.

Interesting, from FAS.org:


Total Military Force
Active: 239,900
Reserves: 47,000

Army (Ground Self-Defense Force) (148,200)
5 Army HQ (Regional)
11 Divisions including 1 Arm[or]ed Division
2 Infantry Brigades [Specialists I think, like their Rangers and "S-Unit"]
2 Composite Brigades [Not sure what these are, Airassault? Mechanized Infantry?]
1 Air Defense Brigade
1 Artillery Brigades, 1 Artillery unit
2 Air Defense Brigades with 3 Air Defense Groups
3 Training Brigades, 1 Training Regiment
5 Engineering Brigade
1 Helicopter Brigade

Navy (Maritime Self-Defense Force) (44,400)
Bases: Yokosuka, Kure, Sasebo, Maizuru, Ominato

Air Force (Air Self-Defense Force) (45,600)
Flying Hours: 150

Forces Abroad and Foreign Forces
Independent
Iraq: 1000
UN
UNMISET (East Timor): 495
UNDOF (Syria/Israel): 30

The following forces are currently stationed in the Japan:
US: 40,680

Paramilitary (12,250)
Coast Guard: 12,250

Strategic Force
Japan's nuclear power program based on reprocessed plutonium has aroused widespread suspicion that Japan is secretly planning to develop nuclear weapons. Japan's nuclear technology and ambiguous nuclear inclinations have provided a considerable nuclear potential, becoming a "paranuclear state." Japan would not have material or technological difficulties in making nuclear weapons. Japan has the raw materials, technology, and capital for developing nuclear weapons. Japan could possibly produce functional nuclear weapons in as little as a year's time. On the strength of its nuclear industry, and its stockpile of weapons-useable plutonium, Japan in some respects considers itself, and is treated by others as, as a virtual nuclear weapons state.

Link Posted: 4/9/2006 10:46:02 AM EDT
Japan is expanding it's capabilities and getting away from the rather small, self defense force they've had. This is primarily in response to North Korea going nuclear and China's increased military spending and build-up. Unless they do so, they would be at a serious disadvantage if the shit were to hit the fan in that region. Plus, they realize that we can't be everywhere at once and have enough of our own issues to deal with right now.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 10:49:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/9/2006 10:52:38 AM EDT by thedoctors308]

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:

Originally Posted By Belloc:
I understand why the Founding Fathers did not want a standing army.
www.georgiapeace.org/USvsWorld2004Top25.gif



The only regret I have about those numbers is the fact we don't have another 420 billion for defense spending.



The Outstanding Public Debt as of 09 Apr 2006 at 06:47:26 PM GMT is $8,399,120,487,217.64

Eight Trillion, Three Hundred Ninety Nine Billion, One Hundred Twenty Million, Four Hundred Eighty Seven Thousand, Two Hundred Seventeen dollars, and Sixty Four cents.

Whats another 420 billion?
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 10:51:36 AM EDT
Well well well, looks like the Air Force wants to sell the F-22A to Japan. To offset R&D costs and probably to get more of 'em out there, huh?

www.military.com/features/0,15240,88282,00.html
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 10:56:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/9/2006 10:58:10 AM EDT by S30V]

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 09 Apr 2006 at 06:47:26 PM GMT is $8,399,120,487,217.64

Eight Trillion, Three Hundred Ninety Nine Billion, One Hundred Twenty Million, Four Hundred Eighty Seven Thousand, Two Hundred Seventeen dollars, and Sixty Four cents.

Whats another 420 billion?



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

What counts I suppose is what % of your GDP you debt is equal to.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/Public_debt_percent_gdp_world_map.PNG/800px-Public_debt_percent_gdp_world_map.PNG

I remember that Putin made a huge point of paying off an immense load of Russia's debt in the recent past rather than increase spending on anything else. Interesting move, hopefully it was the right one (I think it was). Wasn't there also a time in the 70's or 80's when Canada had payed off all of its debt and was totally debt free? I seem to recall something like that...
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 10:58:52 AM EDT
I'd rather it go to them than to R&D for new ghey headgear or something...
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 11:04:29 AM EDT
Sounds good to me!
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 11:08:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:

Originally Posted By Belloc:
I understand why the Founding Fathers did not want a standing army.
www.georgiapeace.org/USvsWorld2004Top25.gif



The only regret I have about those numbers is the fact we don't have another 420 billion for defense spending.



The Outstanding Public Debt as of 09 Apr 2006 at 06:47:26 PM GMT is $8,399,120,487,217.64

Eight Trillion, Three Hundred Ninety Nine Billion, One Hundred Twenty Million, Four Hundred Eighty Seven Thousand, Two Hundred Seventeen dollars, and Sixty Four cents.

Whats another 420 billion?



A deeper hole.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 12:01:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Belloc:
I understand why the Founding Fathers did not want a standing army.
www.georgiapeace.org/USvsWorld2004Top25.gif



The raw numbers are meaningless. A legit comparison requires at looking at % of GDP, and it is helpful to be able to compare it to per capita GDP.

The cost of living is so different in many of those countries that the personnel costs are not an across the board comparison.

shooter
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 12:05:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308: The Outstanding Public Debt as of 09 Apr 2006 at 06:47:26 PM GMT is $8,399,120,487,217.64
Hey guys, let's cut taxes! Mu ha ha ha ha.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 12:38:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Belloc:
I understand why the Founding Fathers did not want a standing army.
www.georgiapeace.org/USvsWorld2004Top25.gif



You're a fucking dumbass then. The founding fathers did not want a standing army because of the capacity o the government to use that army against the people.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 12:41:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:

Originally Posted By thedoctors308: The Outstanding Public Debt as of 09 Apr 2006 at 06:47:26 PM GMT is $8,399,120,487,217.64
Hey guys, let's cut taxes! Mu ha ha ha ha.



Cut spending first.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 12:48:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308: Cut spending first.
Uh no, we should cut taxes first because cutting taxes is an IMMEDIATE benefit to the taxpayer. The benefits of cutting spending take longer to materialize. In the arfcom tradition, we should do both. But if one has to be first, it must be tax cuts.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 12:49:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:

Originally Posted By thedoctors308: Cut spending first.
Uh no, we should cut taxes first because cutting taxes is an IMMEDIATE benefit to the taxpayer. The benefits of cutting spending take longer to materialize. In the arfcom tradition, we should do both. But if one has to be first, it must be tax cuts.



"Get both" is something that applies here for sure.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 1:06:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308: "Get both" is something that applies here for sure.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 2:40:15 PM EDT
Government aid to anyone but me is creeping socialism.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 4:02:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By S30V:

This is the first I've heard of them buying Aegis destroyers and F-22's. Interesting. I am not calling BS, by no means at all, but still, could you perhaps provide a source because this is indeed interesting, since this would mean the rebirth of a very powerful Japanese military.



The first Arleigh Burke destroyer that I ever layed eyes on was flying a rising sun. Can't remember if it was in Sasebo or Yokosuka in 1994.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 3:55:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By Belloc:
I understand why the Founding Fathers did not want a standing army.
www.georgiapeace.org/USvsWorld2004Top25.gif



You're a fucking dumbass then. The founding fathers did not want a standing army because of the capacity o the government to use that army against the people.


Posting during your menstrual cycle does not relfect well on you.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 4:18:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 09 Apr 2006 at 06:47:26 PM GMT is $8,399,120,487,217.64

Eight Trillion, Three Hundred Ninety Nine Billion, One Hundred Twenty Million, Four Hundred Eighty Seven Thousand, Two Hundred Seventeen dollars, and Sixty Four cents.

Whats another 420 billion?



You all DO realize that providing for the national defense is actually a Constitutional thing for the federal government to do, right?

And that it is SUPPOSED to take up the MAJORITY of the Federal government's budget, right?

And that it DOES NOT currently, right?

Link Posted: 4/10/2006 4:25:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/10/2006 4:49:53 AM EDT by John_Wayne777]

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
"Get both" is something that applies here for sure.



Not really....



Tax cuts have helped to spur on the economy and grow the total federal revenue, but the people in Congress keep spending all of it.



And people complained because Bush had cuts in his budget, cuts that won't survive Congress.

Did you know that about 20% of the average state budget comes from Federal grant programs? All those Federal grant programs cost in the neighborhood of 400 billion dollars. And that is to say nothing of the mandatory spending, which is now the largest percentage of the Federal budget:





Mandatory spending, for those who don't know, is for items like Social Security, Medicaid, the Food Stamp program, etc....Notice that out of the 20,000 plus dollars spent per household under the Bush administration, that 12,000 of those dollars are MANDATORY spending. Is this Bush's fault? Nope.

Federal spending is absolutely out of control, but it is not discretionary spending that is the problem. It is the mandatory spending on things like Social Security that are rapidly causing a financial problem, and we can blame Johnson and his big government kind for putting the social security trust fund online in the budget to offset his massive spending increases while trying to "balance" the budget. It was an accounting trick that has brought us to the brink of financial collapse.

If a private company in the United States took money from the employees trust fund to use for operating expenses, all the executives would be thrown into prison. The federal government has been doing this for almost half a century now....
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 4:29:04 AM EDT


According to O’Connell, the funding increase would be used for:

-- Recruitment, training, and deployment of more than 1,300 new special operations personnel;
-- Maintaining sustained operations in areas where terrorist networks are operating;
-- Investments in aircraft to support operations;
-- Training and equipping foreign military forces to improve planning and execution of counterterrorism operations; and
-- Support of the newly created Marine Corps Special Operations Command.






MARSOC, FUCK YEAH!
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 5:11:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/10/2006 5:14:03 PM EDT by Boom_Stick]

Originally Posted By Belloc:
I understand why the Founding Fathers did not want a standing army.


There's two sides to that. The other being, we've learned through previous wars that it's better to have trained troops than put raw recruits out there to get their asses shot off. An all volunteer military is FAR better than a drafted one.

Link Posted: 4/10/2006 5:26:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Belloc:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By Belloc:
I understand why the Founding Fathers did not want a standing army.
www.georgiapeace.org/USvsWorld2004Top25.gif



You're a fucking dumbass then. The founding fathers did not want a standing army because of the capacity o the government to use that army against the people.


Posting during your menstrual cycle does not relfect well on you.



Get fucked. Whatever you are paying for your education over there in Italy, I suggest you ask for a refund.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top