U.S. Planning to cut 40,000 Military Jobs But Not Gun Purchasing

I never thought I would see these cuts!

The U.S. appx military budget is $1,000,000,000,000 (trillion). Compared to the next country, China, of $100 Billion.

China doesn't pay their soldiers a salary comparable to what an american soldier makes. That and Chinese weapons are manufactured in china which equals cheap...

China also wouldn't be involved in 75 countries, as the U.S. is, and be the World's "Police" force!

The US has to get out of 70 countries, unless they are being paid to be there, if they are to get their 1.5 trillion dollar debt under control.

Their military spending is remarkeable. Their excuse for having 40 million US citizens having no basic health care, (we cannot afford it), is embarassing.

Lots of money for guns!

So, how many times in the last century has the world expected the US to use their military might to become involved in conflicts that bascially weren't theirs. WW I, WW II, the UN "police action" in Korea, (remember, that one isn't over yet, its just an armistice) Vietnam, Somalia, the Balkans, Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and during most of that time, maintain a large presence in Europe in preparation for WW III, and assist in disaster relief at home and abroad.



Its easy to bash the military.....until you need them.

and...though I'm sure it was Rosie just trolling...but...

The announcement said nothing about buying more guns.

The announcement only said that the spending on the US Military would SLOW DOWN. That yes, many soldiers would be "retired", but the strength of the forces would be maintained as required...but not to the extent to fight multiple ground wars.

They did the same thing in 1991 after the first desert battle. And then recalled everyone they needed in 1993 when they went back in.

After being desperate for recruits for the past 5 years, and taking on most anyone who walks through the door, they now have the cushion they need to weed out those who aren't up to minimum standards, and the option to retire those senior officers/NCOs who should've retired years ago.

And, considering ANY war from this point out will have a different layout than ground troops marching across a field...the type of soldier being required is being altered. So now where it used to take 200 men to storm a hill, it will take one person with a computerized drone.

I don't think there was a war in Iraq1 The US invaded a sovereign country, but might is right. Chretien was right not to get involved, thank goodness.

In Vietnam the US took over from France, and the result was 50,000 Americans dies, and an estimated 2,000,000 Vietnamese, who did not want France or the USA in their country.

In Afghanistan the US backed Bin Laden with guns to get the Russians out, and then the USA went in.

Many of the US involvements in foreign countries could have been avoided.

The above negative comments do not cover all the reasons. Certainly the way women and children are treated are a factor, but the US hasn't fixed the US mistreatment of its own citizens.

There is so much good that could be done with their military expenses.

The US spends way too much on technology that is way overkill. in my opinion and way too little on doing good.

First, there have been THREE Iraq wars since 1990.
Two of which was the US trying to protect countries around Iraq (and the oil involved), the third is the most recent one where they have been looking for WMDs all this time.

I think you're misunderstanding what a military is for.

A military presence is not for humanitarian reasons. They are supposed to be there to kill the enemy.
It's all the bleeding-heart/hand-holding left-wingers who believe the soldier should be giving hugs to all the civilians as they march through the town blowing things up.

The reason the US has had such a difficult time with recent wars (like Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea) is because of the hand-holding politicians who force the military to sit on their heels in favour of "negotiations" that don't happen or solve anything. All the negotiations should be made before the military is even called. Once armed forces are sent in, there should be no more discussions, other than a "surrender". Anyone who does not want to be shot, should put their hands on their heads and get on their knees, and then pray the soldiers are in a good mood that day.

I think it is summed up best in the movie The Siege, with Bruce Willis' character talking about bringing an Army into NYC. While we're talking about the military being deployed in foreign lands, we're also talking about the same thing...the military being moved in to combat an enemy, particularly one that is hiding.

General William Devereaux:
Twelve hours after the President gives the order we can be on the
ground. One light infantry division of 10,700 men, elements of the Rapid
Deployment Force, Special Forces, Delta, APCs, helicopters, tanks, and
of course the ubiquitous M16A1 assault rifle. A humble enough weapon
until you see it in the hands of a man outside your local bowling alley
or 7-11. It will be noisy. It will be scary, and it will not be mistaken
for a VFW parade.
Army General:
I wanna remind you, General Devereaux does not speak for official
Army policy. A police function has become accepted as our role in Haiti
and Somalia.
General William Devereaux:
Make no mistake. We will hunt down the enemy. We will find the enemy.
And we will kill the enemy. No card-carrying member of the ACLU is more
deadset against it than I am. Which is why I urge you - I *implore* you
- do not consider this as an option.

The weapons of mass destruction reason has been proven to be false . USA went in on a false premise, and have been there at the expense of over 4500 dead young Americans, and a trillion dollars in wasted expense.

That trillion dollars could have done a lot of good.

The USA is the most aggressive Country in the world, and could have benefited with a regime change many years ago!

They should have shot Haliburton senior executives!

"Do no harm"!