Panetta: US ground forces would be cu...

Panetta: US ground forces would be cut by 100,000

There are 137 comments on the WAVE-TV Louisville story from Jan 26, 2012, titled Panetta: US ground forces would be cut by 100,000. In it, WAVE-TV Louisville reports that:

In this Jan. 24, 2012 file photo, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WAVE-TV Louisville.

First Prev
of 7
Next Last

“"Beau-Se'ant”

Since: Jan 09

Manchester

#1 Jan 26, 2012
CHECK SIX

North Port, FL

#2 Jan 26, 2012
..Committing national suicide....thousand of kids will pay for this as always,when loons leave us defenseless...The loons never learn from Pearl harbor,to Kore,To Nam..and all the wars in between..always behind the "8" Ball.....GOD DAM AMERICA?? the bastards are!
Makes sense

Dearborn, MI

#3 Jan 26, 2012
How many ground troops did we need to take out Ghadaffi? NONE

Obama is just much more efficient than Bush.
Makes sense

Dearborn, MI

#4 Jan 26, 2012
The Last Templar wrote:
You're just a military complex welfare queen. President Eisenhower warned us about unpatriotic people like you.

“"Beau-Se'ant”

Since: Jan 09

Manchester

#5 Jan 26, 2012
Makes sense wrote:
<quoted text>
You're just a military complex welfare queen. President Eisenhower warned us about unpatriotic people like you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =8y06NSBBRtYXX
Dearborn, Mi, home of the largest contingent of Islamic radicals in the US.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6 Jan 26, 2012
We have thousands of nukes and the Navy Seals. What more do we need?
Questioner

Menard, TX

#7 Jan 26, 2012
So what kind of military do we need?
Who will they fight?
How will they fight, that is what weapon systems are needed and in what volume.
Should all American's be required to serve?
How will we pay for the military?(taxes, borrowing ... etc.)

Unlike this forum, the pentigon has considered these questions.
alternative med

Nha Trang, Vietnam

#8 Jan 26, 2012
CHECK SIX wrote:
..Committing national suicide....thousand of kids will pay for this as always,when loons leave us defenseless...The loons never learn from Pearl harbor,to Kore,To Nam..and all the wars in between..always behind the "8" Ball.....GOD DAM AMERICA?? the bastards are!
run to Cuba get a job as translater! ;-000
alternative med

Nha Trang, Vietnam

#9 Jan 26, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
We have thousands of nukes and the Navy Seals. What more do we need?
need knee DOW with da BOW WOW ;-000
alternative med

Nha Trang, Vietnam

#10 Jan 26, 2012
Questioner wrote:
So what kind of military do we need?
Who will they fight?
How will they fight, that is what weapon systems are needed and in what volume.
Should all American's be required to serve?
How will we pay for the military?(taxes, borrowing ... etc.)
Unlike this forum, the pentigon has considered these questions.
PENTAgone- dont' question! dont typing!! ;-0000
ZIAmouth585

Albuquerque, NM

#11 Jan 26, 2012
A large standing force is totally unnecessary. With Iraq out of the way and Afghanistan soon to be the same time to start getting pack to a reasonably sized force that is affordable. As Questioner noted above, lots of hard questions need to be asked and answered. America is broke thus cannot spend 5% of GDP on military. Hard-line military supporters need to answer whether they are willing to support tax hikes to pay for an over-sized force. I'm not.

Take the $5 billion we give to Israel annually and give it to US defense as a start. Let them support themselves.
Questioner

Menard, TX

#12 Jan 26, 2012
ZIAmouth585 wrote:
A large standing force is totally unnecessary. With Iraq out of the way and Afghanistan soon to be the same time to start getting pack to a reasonably sized force that is affordable. As Questioner noted above, lots of hard questions need to be asked and answered. America is broke thus cannot spend 5% of GDP on military. Hard-line military supporters need to answer whether they are willing to support tax hikes to pay for an over-sized force. I'm not.
Take the $5 billion we give to Israel annually and give it to US defense as a start. Let them support themselves.
I suspect you are right, BUT it is very important that we correctly identify the threats and get the right force structure. In WWI, WWII, Korea etc. events didn't move as fast as in today's world, there was time to adjust. I'm not sure that is still true.

Smartass comments and clever insults are no substitute for a real debate on this issue. The cat is out of the bag, many of our enemies can get and deliver weapons of mass destruction.
OWS

United States

#13 Jan 26, 2012
excellent decision by BO administration...use the billions on shovel ready project, foodstamps and extended unemployment benefits
Romney s Swiss Tithe

Philadelphia, PA

#14 Jan 26, 2012
CHECK SIX wrote:
..Committing national suicide....thousand of kids will pay for this as always,when loons leave us defenseless...The loons never learn from Pearl harbor,to Kore,To Nam..and all the wars in between..always behind the "8" Ball.....GOD DAM AMERICA?? the bastards are!
Hey cretin, can you tell us how many troops will still be left in uniform after this 100k cut?(No.)

Can you tell us what country will feel more emboldened to attack the US by dint of this 100k cut?(No.)

This cut will mean the US can't invade or attempt to stabilize from total chaos more than one country at a time. Can you understand this?(No.)

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#15 Jan 27, 2012
ZIAmouth585 wrote:
A large standing force is totally unnecessary. With Iraq out of the way and Afghanistan soon to be the same time to start getting pack to a reasonably sized force that is affordable. As Questioner noted above, lots of hard questions need to be asked and answered. America is broke thus cannot spend 5% of GDP on military. Hard-line military supporters need to answer whether they are willing to support tax hikes to pay for an over-sized force. I'm not.
Take the $5 billion we give to Israel annually and give it to US defense as a start. Let them support themselves.
The 5 bil that we give to Israel is most certainly a huge
part of our defense. Think of a middle east with a weak
Israel or with no Israel.The result would be a nest of
hostile terrorist states, bent on destroying us. At least
we have a powerful deterrent in Israel.
I do not think that Iraq is out of the way. I think that we left too early, leaving that country exposed to civil war
and interference from Iran and others. My view is that we need an overpowering military option, especially now.
If taxes have to be raised to facilitate this option, so be it.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#17 Jan 27, 2012
Questioner wrote:
<quoted text>
I suspect you are right, BUT it is very important that we correctly identify the threats and get the right force structure. In WWI, WWII, Korea etc. events didn't move as fast as in today's world, there was time to adjust. I'm not sure that is still true.
Smartass comments and clever insults are no substitute for a real debate on this issue. The cat is out of the bag, many of our enemies can get and deliver weapons of mass destruction.
And WE have THOUSANDS of weapons of mass destruction. Instead of sending hundreds of thousands of troops, we send 1 nuke. Problem solved.
Questioner

Menard, TX

#18 Jan 27, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And WE have THOUSANDS of weapons of mass destruction. Instead of sending hundreds of thousands of troops, we send 1 nuke. Problem solved.
What is to keep 'them' from responding with 1 nuke, or maybe the nemonic plague?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19 Jan 27, 2012
Questioner wrote:
<quoted text>
What is to keep 'them' from responding with 1 nuke, or maybe the nemonic plague?
Nothing. Just as us having a standing army of 1 million or 10 million wouldn't stop them from nuking us either.

1 nuke would have ended the "war" in Iraq, and sent the message to all other crazies that we mean business.
Questioner

Menard, TX

#20 Jan 27, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing. Just as us having a standing army of 1 million or 10 million wouldn't stop them from nuking us either.
1 nuke would have ended the "war" in Iraq, and sent the message to all other crazies that we mean business.
Are you willing to bet, say New York City, that on US nuke would solve end a war (it took 2 in WWII) and discourage relaliation. All those carazies, you know the ones who use sucide bombers, might want to get even at any cost to themselves. Indeed, religious ones may spread propoganda that dying fighting the hated Americans is the ticket to eternal life.
ZIAmouth585

Albuquerque, NM

#21 Jan 27, 2012
bobob wrote:
<quoted text>
The 5 bil that we give to Israel is most certainly a huge
part of our defense. Think of a middle east with a weak
Israel or with no Israel.The result would be a nest of
hostile terrorist states, bent on destroying us. At least
we have a powerful deterrent in Israel.
I do not think that Iraq is out of the way. I think that we left too early, leaving that country exposed to civil war
and interference from Iran and others. My view is that we need an overpowering military option, especially now.
If taxes have to be raised to facilitate this option, so be it.
Israel is a terrorist nation in my book. They do nothing to enhance the stability of the area - in fact its just the opposite. The only plus for America is it gives Islamic terrorist organizations an available target thus keeping the focus "over there". Beyond that I don't want my tax dollars propping up a nation that attacked America (USS Liberty).

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

John Cornyn Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Share on LinkedIn Jul 12 positronium 11
News Senate GOP releases bill to cut Medicaid, alter... Jun 22 Funny Thing 1
News GOP legislative agenda incomplete, lags as Cong... Jun '17 Trumpsajoke 20
News GOP legislative agenda incomplete, lags as Cong... Jun '17 Guy from Latonia 1
News Cornyn says he will stay in Senate, won't be FBIa May '17 Mueller 1
News GOP lawmakers crafting tough immigration bill -... May '17 Putins Glock Holster 5
News Trump considering numerous candidates for FBI d... May '17 BlunderCONS are l... 17
More from around the web