US Armed Forced the Most Powerful - Page 2

kylebacc · 11-25-2007, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pretend

Just so you know, guy, TA-50 and initial issue does not consist of any sort of weaponry or vehicles.

Now, I never complained, a majority of what I received I will need. (Minus the underwear, never wore those.

) I simply stated that it is a waste of money. Think before you speak and avoid making yourself look the fool.

My TA-50 consists of items such as bags, polypro's (thermal underwear), a $600 (around that) sleeping bag system, and miscellanious uniform items such as a Camelback, canteens, ammo pouches, etc.

The Army is overcharged. I'm sure you know what that means, but to make sure it means that they pay more than the real value of an item.

Do you understand now?

EDIT: I forgot to include what the initial issue includes. Uniforms. That's it. ACU's, boots, Class A's and B's, etc.

Considered.

robert s. · 11-29-2007, 06:40 PM

just to give you an idea how the costs of weapons and technical gadgets are calculated:

in 1991 germany sold 36 "fuchs"-tanks to saudi-arabia for a total price of 446 million (then) marks. (equals roughy 225 million euros)
in 1995 - big scandal - somebody leaked to the press that out of these 446 million, 220 million were actually used for bribing.

well, i have no proof whatsoever, but i am strongly suspecting that this will not be much different the world over!

jdspc · 12-06-2007, 11:18 PM

So, it is not the lack of equipment that keeps us mired in conflict...
Poor decisions? weak strategies? greed...?

Not many folks rob a house with big dogs. But bait them and they will reveal their weakness'.

Futo · 12-09-2007, 10:38 AM

That ($553 billion) is a frightening amount of money.

pss4u · 01-22-2008, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

By Budget

1. US - $553 billion

2. UK - $72 billion

3. France - $67 billion

By Fighter Aircraft

1. US - 3200

2. Russia - 2050

3. China - 1400

The US also lead the world in number of aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, nuclear subs and non-nuclear subs.

It's a fact that some Americans are no doubt proud of, but it is for the most part a huge waste of money. Our airbases in Japan, for example, with tens of thousands of staff, are not necessary. The absurdity of the huge waste of money is breathtaking.

John,

I just have to say one thing about that. The US needs to waste all of that money on having the hugest armed forces. Think about it, If we (i live in the us) didn't have such a large armed forces then we couldn't stick our nose's in other countries problems that have no relevance to the united states. We also couldn't be as broke (as a country) that we currently are and the overall number 1 reason why we need such a huge armed forces is because

WITHOUT IT, WE COULDN'T BOMB OTHER COUNTRIES OVER PETTY BS THAT WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO WORRY ABOUT IN THE FIRST PLACE AND THEN PAY EVEN MORE MONEY TO SPEND THE NEXT DECADE REBUILDING THE COUNTRY THAT WE JUST BOMBED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Government logical what an oxymoron.

Jason Conway

seconnection · 01-22-2008, 06:42 PM

those are some interesting stats... I had no idea how much the French were spending on military

DarthMall · 01-25-2008, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

By Budget

It's a fact that some Americans are no doubt proud of, but it is for the most part a huge waste of money. Our airbases in Japan, for example, with tens of thousands of staff, are not necessary. The absurdity of the huge waste of money is breathtaking.

Unless G Dubs is afraid of North Korea. We are a society driven by fear. Who cares about the future, especially related to overall economic conditions, if we are safe today.

backgammonnn123 · 01-25-2008, 05:36 PM

Its amazing that we have such a large GDP and we still see people struggling to make ends meet. Whats wrong with this picture?

PocketSEO · 01-26-2008, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Our airbases in Japan, for example, with tens of thousands of staff, are not necessary.

I'm in Japan at the moment and agree that it looks like there is a lot of waste.

Bernard · 01-28-2008, 01:37 PM

American taxpayers just enjoy subsidizing the rest of the world by spending our hard earned money on their defense (so they don't have to). Good thing all this military spending is sustainable by unlimited borrowing and devaluation of the dollar.

BradP · 02-05-2008, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard

American taxpayers just enjoy subsidizing the rest of the world by spending our hard earned money on their defense (so they don't have to). Good thing all this military spending is sustainable by unlimited borrowing and devaluation of the dollar.

Unlimited borrowing and devaluation of the dollar has its limits but nobody in his right mind will start pressing Uncle Sam for money since a lot of countries depend on its consumption for their products.

Brian · 02-05-2008, 10:12 PM

we can bomb the world 80 times over yea!!! look at us!

DarthMall · 02-06-2008, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by backgammonnn123

Its amazing that we have such a large GDP and we still see people struggling to make ends meet. Whats wrong with this picture?

Capitalism. And people afraid of socialism.
We are supposed to have the best medical technology in the world, but what good is it if we can not provide health care to those in need? There are so many domestic problems in the US, but we keep focusing on "helping" the rest of the world by implanting the seed of democracy.

The US armed forces may have some of the best equipment and the most of it, but this does little good if we are unable to respond to provide enough competent soldiers. The PT requirements for new recruits was recently lowered to attract more people. This is great. Toss them a sign on bonus and give them a gun and send them to Iraq. Problem solved. oh boy..............

BradP · 02-07-2008, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarthMall

Capitalism. And people afraid of socialism.
We are supposed to have the best medical technology in the world, but what good is it if we can not provide health care to those in need? There are so many domestic problems in the US, but we keep focusing on "helping" the rest of the world by implanting the seed of democracy.

The US armed forces may have some of the best equipment and the most of it, but this does little good if we are unable to respond to provide enough competent soldiers. The PT requirements for new recruits was recently lowered to attract more people. This is great. Toss them a sign on bonus and give them a gun and send them to Iraq. Problem solved. oh boy..............

as the sole superpower left, it is actually good that they provide a deterrent presence in the unstable regions of the world but the Iraq war.... I cannot fathom.

btcollins · 02-08-2008, 08:37 PM

Yes, America has the most powerful military

But I find myself compelled to question America's top leadership

You will NEVER win the hearts and minds of the people by dropping napalm

on their women and children

If you want to make America powerful then spend more on education

Knowledge IS Power

**South** · 02-09-2008, 09:33 AM

We're only about 20 years out of the cold war. All of us who lived during it will have to be dead and gone before there's any serious outcry to lower military spending.

I agree with Reagan that an astounding, intimidating military is needed for peace. It's one of those places that you're better to have overkill than not enough.

As for Canada, you don't need one. You're on our northern border so there's no way we'd allow enemies to take you. Same for Mexico. Unless of course you ticked off our allies, and Canada only mildly irritates people.

Canada can accuse us of sending unwanted military out into the world, but you do just as devastating damage to MTV.