Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/28/06 02:20 AM, -poxpower- wrote: God, that would be the day. Soldiers buying their OWN guns and ammo. Haha.
"ok Cadet frank, you're a sailor now, so you along with your 1400 mates here are going to chip-in for this here aircraft carrier. Should cost you a hundred grand each but whatever, we can't afford it anymore. You should have gone to college instead."

It's more like, "we couldn't afford to put ballistic plates in your body armor, so just ignore the tag where it says 'vest provides no protection without balistic plates'"

At 5/27/06 09:03 PM, sdhonda wrote: Show me links and you win.

I don't have the links on me. But read 'China: Its History and Culture' by W. Scott Morton. And to quote an actual student from China: "the time of the military training, for junior high school, often for three days, for high school, often for a week. For university, often for a month"

WHAT THE HELL! THE DAMN AMERICAN MILITARY HAS TOO MUCH ****ing funding already.

My god, in Canada, when someone metions military, we say "what are you talking about?"

Yes Canadians say ABOUT not ABOOT!

At 5/28/06 08:02 AM, wexer9 wrote: WHAT THE HELL! THE DAMN AMERICAN MILITARY HAS TOO MUCH ****ing funding already.
My god, in Canada, when someone metions military, we say "what are you talking about?"
Yes Canadians say ABOUT not ABOOT!

You seem to be extremely angry. I think you really ought to calm down before you hurt yourself.

At 5/28/06 04:18 AM, A_Carrot_By_Dr_Riot wrote:

It's more like, "we couldn't afford to put ballistic plates in your body armor, so just ignore the tag where it says 'vest provides no protection without balistic plates'"

That's the idea. So, why in h*ll do we need to buy F-22s?

At 5/27/06 12:32 AM, Jayemare wrote:

:stuff

Shut the fuck up ,

1 ) Illegals don't rob your bullshit welfare system , instead , your social security system robs them by taking away money from their paychecks for "retirement" purposes when in reality , they will never have access to any of the Social Security money since they're illegal . You should be thanking them for funding the retirement of your grandparents while getting absolutely nothing in return , you stupid fuck .

2) High tech shit being cut back ? Tough shit! That's what happens when you elect a fiscally irresponsable president to power ... I mean , hey , do you honestly think there would be any money left after those outrageous tax cuts for the rich and these 2 stupid wars that we're stuck on ( Afghanistan and Iraq) !?

Most illegals don't pay into the Social Security system.

At 5/28/06 10:21 AM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: Most illegals don't pay into the Social Security system.

Bullshit , bullshit , bullshit .

There's those who work at Maccy D's and these fast food joints who get the Social Security tax discounted off of their paychecks and will never get the SS money back.

There are those who own their own businesses ( ie Landscaping , Construction , etc) who have to pay taxes to the govt .

There are those ( more than you think ) who declare their taxes on their own even though they get paid under the table.

You see , there's more to this than meets the eye .

At 5/28/06 03:05 AM, RedScorpion wrote: Military expenditures - dollar figure: $518.1 billion (FY04 est.) (2005 est.)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 4.06% (FY03 est.) (2005 est.)

OK, yeah, Bush probably did jump the budget to much. I still stand by we should spend proportional amounts of our GDP to everyone else in the world. And we should spend what we have spent. Like I said, America has the most to lose in a changing world and the military is a protection against that change.

Israel is apparently 7th at 7,70%. (2005)

Of course you wont ever hear Mackid say anything about that because everything Israel does is infalliable.

At 5/28/06 09:50 AM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: That's the idea. So, why in h*ll do we need to buy F-22s?

Because our F-15's are aging and the F-22's have unparralleled performance compared to other jets.

You dont prepare a military compared to what you need for what you think may be needed in the future. You prepare for EVERY concievable future threat, conventional and asymetrical.

At 5/28/06 03:05 AM, RedScorpion wrote: Military expenditures - dollar figure: $518.1 billion (FY04 est.) (2005 est.)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 4.06% (FY03 est.) (2005 est.)

Ok yeah, so we probably should cut the budget some. But that doesnt mean we shouldnt be spending about what the rest of the world spends GDP wise.

At 5/28/06 10:35 AM, The-Sun wrote: There are those ( more than you think ) who declare their taxes on their own even though they get paid under the table.

Yeah, Im sure if I was poor as hell and made practically no money and the IRS doesnt even know I am there there, I would pay taxes. Cause, ya know, I REALLY want to be in the system so its possible I can be booted out of the country.

Right : /

And I give a flying fuck to illegals paying 5 dollars of every paycheck to SS. Wow, it almost makes me care they are not illegal.

Right again : /

At 5/27/06 12:32 AM, Jayemare wrote: I get teary-eyed whenever I read about some new great military program being cut or scaled back because of funding problems. To think, money that could be used to defend freedom (which isn't free) is going to some illegal mexican defrauding our welfare system. Our military should never have to make cuts in necessary programs, because it comes at the expense of our nation (case in point: the F22) We spend over a trillion dollars on old people and poor people, but we can't develop anti-ied tech? We really need to get our priorities straight, or we'll end up like canada or france, i.e. depending on a stronger nation to defend us like we're some little bitches.

You should actually learn from France! It shows you how things are to be done.
USA spends far too much on military, but not enough on their own citizens.

We should learn from the French on the subject of military funding. That's an incredible idea. We should probably ask Poland and Tibet too.

At 5/28/06 06:03 PM, A_Carrot_By_Dr_Riot wrote: We should learn from the French on the subject of military funding. That's an incredible idea. We should probably ask Poland and Tibet too.

Are you trying to say France is weak?

The thing about france is that they arnt weak, just unlucky. Their foes are often much bigger than they are. Even if you fight to the death with bravery and honour and that BS, you still die.

America, on the other hand, often fights against enemies weaker than them, hence, they have a higher win ratio.

At 5/28/06 08:18 PM, sdhonda wrote: The thing about france is that they arnt weak, just unlucky. Their foes are often much bigger than they are. Even if you fight to the death with bravery and honour and that BS, you still die.

But France isn't simply unlucky. They've had massive losses in history, yes, but massive gains as well. WW1, WW2, Napoleonic Wars, their colonial holdings, the Hundred Years War, etc.

America, on the other hand, often fights against enemies weaker than them, hence, they have a higher win ratio.

What about Vietnam, the Iraqi Insurgency, and even the Korean War after trying to push into North Korea? And we only faced powerful enemies before 1946.

Just because France doesn't rush to war at every opportunity, doesn't mean its weak.

You can learn much more from defeat, remember. So historically, france has learned a bloody lot.

What about Vietnam, the Iraqi Insurgency, and even the Korean War after trying to push into North Korea? And we only faced powerful enemies before 1946.

Just because the enemy uses guerrilla warfare, doesent make them weak. It can be quite devestating, espeiccally if you underestimate them.

North korea had tons of chinese troops, they simply used raw numbers to overwhelm UN forces.

At 5/28/06 08:51 PM, altanese_mistress wrote: But France isn't simply unlucky. They've had massive losses in history, yes, but massive gains as well. WW1, WW2, Napoleonic Wars, their colonial holdings, the Hundred Years War, etc.

every country has its wins and losses. two of those losses came from a very ressourceful enemy. poor France had astounding defenses setup against Germany in WWII along the Maginot line...unfortunatley the nazi's took the long way round :P.

What about Vietnam, the Iraqi Insurgency, and even the Korean War after trying to push into North Korea?

i have to say that the "loss/tie" in Korea was the last was pretty much the last loss against an actual army. the North Vietnamese were backed by the Chinese but i'm not sure if what they had could really be called an army, and in that case the actual army was indeed weaker than the American army.
this is also true for Iraq, Afghanistan and whatnot. they had small armies, weak in comparison to the US (did Afghanistan have an army, i don't remember), but the problem are non army men blowing and shooting things. so in that situation they are no longer fighting the state which means that the insurgents cannot be counted into the state's military power.

At 5/27/06 02:16 AM, Peternormous wrote: At 5/27/06 02:12 AM, sdhonda wrote:.

BTW, in such a war, china would be ****ed. The US just needs to put a sub in the sea of japan, and BOOM! If the US wanted, Beijing would become a smoldering crater in less than 30 minutes.

^ Agreed. I'm fairly sure that the US military also has some sort of superweapon-type that we don't know about in case of a big war, or maybe I'm a crazy conspiracy theorist.

Yeah, it's known as satelite guided bombs. You know that in Iraq the army never actually faced off with an enemy tank, they were all blown up before the army ever arrived.

Well if your all grumpy now, just wait.

The goverment is like a teenager with a credit card, racking up bills. We have to cut back somewhere, or raise taxes. Either way people will complain.

At 5/29/06 01:59 AM, Guitarmy wrote:

At 5/27/06 02:16 AM, Peternormous wrote: At 5/27/06 02:12 AM, sdhonda wrote:.

BTW, in such a war, china would be ****ed. The US just needs to put a sub in the sea of japan, and BOOM! If the US wanted, Beijing would become a smoldering crater in less than 30 minutes.

^ Agreed. I'm fairly sure that the US military also has some sort of superweapon-type that we don't know about in case of a big war, or maybe I'm a crazy conspiracy theorist.

Yeah, it's known as satelite guided bombs. You know that in Iraq the army never actually faced off with an enemy tank, they were all blown up before the army ever arrived.

I dearly hope none of you thinks that 'china would be ****ed' China has a massive army, its civilians have SOME military training, and they aren't as behind in military technology as some people would like to think. And even if they have 'some sort of superweapon type' they could still nuke every major city in the US, all our state capitals, and still have more than half their stockpile left.

The gap between military power is closing in the sense that more and more countries are getting more advanced weaponry. Less and less is needed to be more and more destructive.

Even in a nuclear war, America wouldn't last long. While Russia was building bomb shelters and actual protection, we were telling children to hide under the desks.

At 5/28/06 09:18 PM, sdhonda wrote:

What about Vietnam, the Iraqi Insurgency, and even the Korean War after trying to push into North Korea? And we only faced powerful enemies before 1946.

Just because the enemy uses guerrilla warfare, doesent make them weak. It can be quite devestating, espeiccally if you underestimate them.

Guerilla warfare is a conventional army's worst nightmare. The guerilla warfare used in Vietnam stemmed from Mao's revolutionary war in China. You see his 'People's War' on which many revolutions in the latter galf of the 20th century were based, is a prolonged conflict, something Western People cannot stand.

At 5/27/06 12:34 AM, Peternormous wrote: Did you just say that the US military is underfunded? What a dipshit. Do you realize how much we spend on defense compared to other nations.

Yeah i agree america spends too much on its military but countries like britian arnt spending enough we used to be the most powerful country in the world and we are now spending money on the most stupidest of things spend it on the military and get a proud nation

France since 1850 has not won a single war without the help of allies and most of the time they were under occupation during the war france has lost the will to fight thats why britian went to war with geemany instead of france because france would have been a pushover they french r weak face it
big military = America(leaders of the world)
Small miltary = France (begs people 2 leave them alone while they sell wine)

At 5/29/06 11:43 AM, Span-home wrote:

At 5/27/06 12:34 AM, Peternormous wrote: Did you just say that the US military is underfunded? What a dipshit. Do you realize how much we spend on defense compared to other nations.

Yeah i agree america spends too much on its military but countries like britian arnt spending enough we used to be the most powerful country in the world and we are now spending money on the most stupidest of things spend it on the military and get a proud nation

Hey guess what? The 19th century called...

We have moved on from big armies. Britain shall have a small, professional army for as long as we live. I don't know what you mean by spending money on 'the stupidest of things' but I don't like it.

If you need a big army to be proud, you have a problem.

At 5/29/06 11:48 AM, Span-home wrote: France since 1850 has not won a single war without the help of allies and most of the time they were under occupation during the war france has lost the will to fight thats why britian went to war with geemany instead of france because france would have been a pushover they french r weak face it

Thankyou for butchering history by not using full-stops, commas....or sense. Now I love France as much as the next Englishman, but you take the biscuit.

big military = America(leaders of the world)
Small miltary = France (begs people 2 leave them alone while they sell wine)

Do you actually know ANYTHYING about the French military?

mabey you should take a look at this movie bud

http://www.truemajority.org/oreos/

At 5/29/06 12:02 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote:

At 5/29/06 11:48 AM, Span-home wrote:

Do you actually know ANYTHYING about the French military?

As a reinforcing point, France does have a competent army. They sent over 5,500 soldiers in the initial assault on Afghanistan after 9/11, and play several roles in various conflicts around the globe. They are pretty active in the NATO task forces.

Here's a link to some facts if anyone is interested... Clicky

I think people tend to treat France badly because of how extreme the german advance was on the country. Side-stepping the Maginot line, blitzing through the Netherlands, and storming through a previously thought impassable forest... It was not a good surprise (tanks weren't known for bulldozing trees). All at night time, they charged the line, took the northeast corner within a few days, and proceeded to blitz through the rest of western europe. German military technology and manpower far out-paced any nation at that moment. They almost took over Britain and Russia, for crying out loud. Without international support... =\

The French were still fighting, despite the loss of their home country. From their colonies in the Middle East and Africa, they assisted in the North African Allied campaign against Rommel and the Italians. So they weren't totally out of the game. >_>

The point of this story... do some research and argue/attack something in an intellectual manner, not with the common rhetoric that people stereotypically spew out. Be nice if this didn't turn into another General forum. =\

At 5/29/06 11:54 PM, SireWolf wrote: mabey you should take a look at this movie bud

http://www.truemajority.org/oreos/

That's a pretty good find. And considering how that the budget is now up over 500 billion, it seems that there just might be more room for cuts, without actually damaging any major military capability. All that money could be spent towards ensuring that the nations standards is one of the highest in the world, for only a small percentage of the budget. Which would also help the country in the long run.

Now only if the administration would listen...

At 5/29/06 11:48 AM, Span-home wrote: France since 1850 has not won a single war without the help of allies

Name a single war that America won without allies?

and most of the time they were under occupation during the war france has lost the will to fight

Then explain the French Resistance. And only some of France was occupied for more than a couple weeks in WW1.

thats why britian went to war with geemany instead of france because france would have been a pushover they french r weak face it

I thought it was because Germany bombed London and was taking over Europe. Besides, wouldn't the smart thing to do be to ally with the stronger, defeat the weaker while gaining power?

big military = America(leaders of the world)
Small miltary = France (begs people 2 leave them alone while they sell wine)

France is the third largest military spender in NATO, and among the top ten I know worldwide.