User Panel
Posted: 1/3/2006 4:23:12 AM EDT
Just wondering what everyone else thought of this so called reformation "Plan."
It doesnt make me feel any safer knowing we are slashing our military..Why would the military brass go along with this coon? |
|
Slashing???
We are adding several more combat brigades and trimming uneeded support elements, and making existing support elements lighter and more efficient. We are, in the end, adding a lot more trigger pullers. |
|
WTF is the word in red supposed to mean, |
|
|
Mods, please don't lock this thread. I love seeing the funny new .gifs and troll animations.
|
|
FOAD,
And take your stupid ass back to the DU while you're at it... - georgestrings |
|
Please do not lock!! I want this guy to come back with his witty, cut and paste arguement!!! And explain the "coon" thing to me!! ETA: I sent him a link so he does not forget where he posted!!! |
|
|
I cannot take the credit for that one I posted, it's was one that someone else posted that I saved. |
|
|
Shouldn't everybody stop bashing KeMiCaLs until there is more positive evidence that he is a troll?
He could have the potential to be a great poster, couldn't he Or maybe just a troll. Everybody has to start out from zero posts, and I'm sure that some people who could have been great members have been pissed off by the welcome they received. |
|
Fair enough.
How about this: If there were to be strength reductions, even to absurd amounts the military brass would go along with the Honorable Mr. Rumsfeld because that's how things work in this country. The military takes its orders from the civilian leadership. |
||
|
I love that new troll animation. Is that one of the official ones now? If not, it should be. |
||
|
Not an official one, just one that was posted here by someone else that I saved. |
|
|
Rumsfeld's mantra has always been "go light" and downsize. Nothing new here.
As Defense Secretary, I'd put him on a par with McNamara. some definite genius, but also a lot of head in the sand action and some ideas that just didn't quite pan out. On the lighter side, here are some interesting Rumsfeld quotes:
|
|
|
In theory... But in practice, legit new members usually post gun questions and a few replies. Trolls usually start new threads in GD with stuff that sounds like it was copied straight from DU. |
|
|
Yep. |
||
|
So Rumsfeld's plan is more thrusts per squeeze? |
|
|
He's probably talking about this article. It's being debated over on TankNet, and we have concluded that we don't understand it. We can't see how they can possibly justify dropping combat brigades. (Dropping a few HQs wouldn't hurt though)
____________ Pentagon Weighs Cutting Troops Reduction Would Provide More Money For New Weapons Systems And Other Equipment December 21, 2005 By TOM BOWMAN, Baltimore Sun WASHINGTON -- Pentagon officials are considering cutting as many as 34,000 soldiers - the bulk of them from the National Guard - at a time when U.S. ground forces are stretched in Iraq, according to defense officials. The proposed cuts are part of a reduction in the growth of defense spending over the next five years ordered by the White House. The manpower cuts stem from a decision by Army leaders to sacrifice troop strength to provide more money for new weapons systems and other equipment, said defense officials, who requested anonymity. The plan, which has not yet been approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, is likely to spur criticism from members of Congress, who have pressed for a larger Army, and prompt even greater opposition from the nation's governors, who command the part-time Guard soldiers unless they are called to federal duty. State officials rely heavily on the 334,000-soldier Army Guard for natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina. The plan calls for the reduction of some 26,000 Army Guard soldiers. It would eliminate as many as six brigades - each with about 3,500 soldiers - as well as two division headquarters, officials said. One aviation brigade would likely be targeted, along with five ground brigades, including as many as four armored and mechanized units, officials said. No specific states have been singled out for cuts, but those types of ground units are in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Washington, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, Minnesota and Idaho. The rest of the proposed cuts would come from the 189,000-soldier Army Reserve, which would lose 4,000 soldiers, and the 492,000-soldier active-duty Army, which would be cut by one brigade, officials said. Asked about the plan, Paul Boyce, an Army spokesman, said: "The U.S. Army is looking at a great number of options. Nothing has been decided at this time." Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said Army officials have not told him about any decisions on troop reductions. "Nobody's talked to me about having significant cuts in the National Guard," Blum said. Still, he said, eliminating six Guard brigades would amount to a "significant loss" of capability for the Guard, both for its domestic responsibilities and in its support for overseas missions, such as Iraq, where the Guard has provided nearly 50 percent of U.S. combat units. "It would reduce the number of citizen soldiers available to the governors and to the president at a time when no one has a sure picture of what we face in the future," Blum said in an interview. "It would be unwise and risky in today's uncertain threat environment." One Pentagon official, who requested anonymity, said the decision to reduce troop levels was spurred by the need to cut $32 billion in Pentagon spending between 2007 and 2011. The Army's share of that cut over five years is $11.6 billion or 36 percent, said the official, though the Army's share of the total Pentagon budget is about 24 percent. "The Defense Department does not have enough money to pay for all the bills it has to pay," the official said. "The Army leadership knows it's a tough call." The official said much of the Army's budget - 40 cents of each dollar - goes for personnel costs, compared with 16 cents of each dollar for hardware, everything from radios and night-vision goggles to Humvees and tanks. In the 1990s, the Army reduced the amount of money it devoted to such hardware and now finds itself with equipment shortages, which have been exacerbated by war losses and damage from ongoing missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. |
|
link Rating: |
|||
|
Have you noticed that SHE started all this and then has not come back?
|
|
yep |
|
|
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.