Pentagon official signals possible Army layoffs

A Pentagon official signaled on Wednesday that the Army could lay off as many as 24,000 enlisted personnel and up to 5,000 officers within five years to meet a projected reduction in the force driven by budget cuts and the winding down of two wars.

[Breitbart]

Dream on. With the dog-eating war monger in office, it will never happen.

[S-N-A-F-U]

Brilliant!! The world is a powder-keg full of our enemies and Pee-Wee Herman Hussein wants to turn our military into a hollow shell. If the empty suit in the WH had a modicum of intelligence - he would take a lesson from R.R.-- "Peace through Strength."

However, I believe the following metaphor is quite apropos where permitting some undesirable event will allow gradual and unavoidable worsening of that situation if not interrupted early on. IOW,“If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow.” Our enemies are awaiting with bated breath....'Nuff said.

[bailout my duck]

Ask the Brave Americans to work on the U.S.A. borders and salute them

[Kahoki]

These people are a bunch of idiots. It is not the force that is the problem. Troop levels are fine. Having them spread out in over 130 different conuntries and 700+ worldwide bases are the problem.

Dumping money into wars where we do not have a formal declaration of war, chasing a f'ing ideal.

When was the last time an ideal was stopped with military force? ahhhhhhhh never.

For instance, why do we need to be building a base in Australia to house 50k troops? Not just that, think of the logistics to maintain that said base and the cost to run it? Now multiply that cost by 700 for all of the worldwide bases.

And our borders are left wide open. Yeah, thats smart.

As I said above. A bunch of idiots.

[Breitbart]

It's an Obama eat dog world.

[Gravediggers]

Mr Bill is at it again, slanted and biased articles

[WeTheSheeple]

Kahoki wrote:

These people are a bunch of idiots. It is not the force that is the problem. Troop levels are fine. Having them spread out in over 130 different conuntries and 700+ worldwide bases are the problem.
Dumping money into wars where we do not have a formal declaration of war, chasing a f'ing ideal.
When was the last time an ideal was stopped with military force? ahhhhhhhh never.
For instance, why do we need to be building a base in Australia to house 50k troops? Not just that, think of the logistics to maintain that said base and the cost to run it? Now multiply that cost by 700 for all of the worldwide bases.
And our borders are left wide open. Yeah, thats smart.
As I said above. A bunch of idiots.

Obviously you didn't read the article. They're getting rid of troop we don't need because basically out of Iraq and starting to pull out of Afghanistan.

Keeping excess troops not only wastes taxpayers money, but actually encourages the warmongers to use them somewhere.

I agree we should pull all our troops from overseas and station them on our borders, but that's no reason to keep excess troops.

[WeTheSheeple]

Btw, I thought allowing gays to serve openly in the military was going to cause thousands upon thousands of troops to get out? If a third of the military is going to quit like the anti-gays claimed, then there would be no need for this drawdown.

Hmmm, looks like chicken-little anit-gays were wrong again.

[Retired SOF]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

Btw, I thought allowing gays to serve openly in the military was going to cause thousands upon thousands of troops to get out? If a third of the military is going to quit like the anti-gays claimed, then there would be no need for this drawdown.
Hmmm, looks like chicken-little anit-gays were wrong again.

They knew the rules before they joined. You can not do drugs, you can not post classified information, you can not talk about the commander-in-chief and you can not suck c*ck, oh wait that one changed. Which one of the others will next?

[Breitbart]

Everyday is a dog day for Obama.

[Eleanor]

No one seemed to be worried about the BUDGET when the USA stormed Bagdad or dropped tons of explosives on Tora Bora.

None-the-less, it IS responsible behavior to re-evaluate personnel needs and make appropriate adjustments during the period of winding down the wars.

No doubt, should situations develop when the USA needs to storm a country or drop tons of explosives, the USA will again rise to the occasion as it has in the past.

[Your Ex]

Gravediggers wrote:

Mr Bill is at it again, slanted and biased articles

Clueless
Off topic
Spam
Still hope for you...
http://www.nami.org/

[WeTheSheeple]

Retired SOF wrote:

<quoted text>
They knew the rules before they joined. You can not do drugs, you can not post classified information, you can not talk about the commander-in-chief and you can not suck c*ck, oh wait that one changed. Which one of the others will next?

Actually the ban on sodomy is still in place. The only difference is now the military will ignore man-on-man sodomy just like they ignored man-on-woman sodomy all those years. If the military kicked out every servicemember who committed sodomy, there would be about 10 fat ugly dudes with little dicks left to defend the country.

[Retired SOF]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually the ban on sodomy is still in place. The only difference is now the military will ignore man-on-man sodomy just like they ignored man-on-woman sodomy all those years. If the military kicked out every servicemember who committed sodomy, there would be about 10 fat ugly dudes with little dicks left to defend the country.

Wait until someone cries rape. See if "Sodomy" is one of the charges! You can't have it both ways, no pun intended!!

[WeTheSheeple]

Retired SOF wrote:

<quoted text>
Wait until someone cries rape. See if "Sodomy" is one of the charges! You can't have it both ways, no pun intended!!

So long as gay & straight servicemembers are all treated the same.

[Retired SOF]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
So long as gay & straight servicemembers are all treated the same.

Hold your breath on that one!

[McBeekini]

Gravediggers wrote:

Mr Bill is at it again, slanted and biased articles

yo Pension with Pentagone;-000

[PooPoo Platter]

There's no way we will achieve the teabagger dream of a balanced budget & more tax cuts for the top 1% without major cuts in the defense budget.

'Ol PooPoo thought the Topix teabaggers would rejoice that President Obama was governing so responsibly by requiring the Pentagon to live within its means...

[McBeekini]

PooPoo Platter wrote:

There's no way we will achieve the teabagger dream of a balanced budget & more tax cuts for the top 1% without major cuts in the defense budget.
'Ol PooPoo thought the Topix teabaggers would rejoice that President Obama was governing so responsibly by requiring the Pentagon to live within its means...

P3. liked the news www.victoriasecret.com/more colombeeria ;)

[Retired SOF]

PooPoo Platter wrote:

There's no way we will achieve the teabagger dream of a balanced budget & more tax cuts for the top 1% without major cuts in the defense budget.
'Ol PooPoo thought the Topix teabaggers would rejoice that President Obama was governing so responsibly by requiring the Pentagon to live within its means...

And how much debt has Obama ran up in the last 3+ years?