You are viewing our Forum Archives. To view or take place in current topics click here.
#41. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 12, 201410Year Member
Posts: 1,884
Reputation Power: 8560
Motto: 1v1 me rocket league
Motto: 1v1 me rocket league
Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 12, 201410Year Member
Posts: 1,884
Reputation Power: 8560
Motto: 1v1 me rocket league
I don't know. Pretty sad that almost half our country for a racist, 'business man' that was handed down to him. Yet, we still call him a business man, idk. screwed.
- 2useful
- 3not useful
#42. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 28, 201014Year Member
Posts: 2,245
Reputation Power: 257
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 28, 201014Year Member
Posts: 2,245
Reputation Power: 257
Cioran wroteNot subtracted from the military as a hole. It needs to be distributed more evenly.Glock- wroteCioran wrotei respect that, I do.Illustrated wroteCioran wrote
From what I have seen a lot of the money invested in the US military goes towards vehicles, like fighter jets.
What else, if not weapons and equipment, does this money go towards?
This is a genuine question, I'm not trying to catch you out or anything.
I just don't understand how that much money can go on everything except what it should be prioritised towards.
We're a big country, and we (arguably) lead the world. A country like that needs a big military like our. And the more men you have means the more spending. The military funding goes to uniforms, food, and pay for the troops as well.. not just vehicles and weapons.
I'm getting from you and Glock- that spending goes mainly towards pay, food, bombs, the navy and the airforce.
If you were to end up in a war tomorrow with another major superpower which weapons would be the most effective. Would it be your boots on the ground and their equipment or the bombs from the airforce, etc. ?
If it is your boots on the ground then wouldn't it be better to re-allocate the funds and balance them across all areas of the military, rather than pouring it into one area while other areas are deprived?
If it is the air force and bombing then wouldn't you rather that money goes towards that area, rather than troop equipment?
Either way I don't see why military spending needs to be increased when the only problem seems to be mis-allocation of funds, rather than the pot not being full enough to adequately equip all areas.
Glock-, I understand that you are highly educated when it comes to military spending which is why I'm asking you guys these questions, rather than going to a random website which could be throwing its own spin on things. I trust that you, as a staunch arbiter of truth and justice, will not deceive me.
We need to subtract some funds from the navy and Airforce and focus on the Army and Marines. We need updated technology and equipment
When you say subtract you don't then mean that the amount of money currently being allocated to the US military in total needs to be increased. It just needs to be distributed more evenly?
Because if that's what you're saying then I would completely agree.
I don't understand why a lot of republicans say that military spending needs to be increased overall if the problem can be solved without increasing the amount spent allowing that leftover money to go to other areas which need it, like healthcare, or education.
- 0useful
- 0not useful
#43. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Nov 07, 201212Year Member
Posts: 3,732
Reputation Power: 362
Status: Offline
Joined: Nov 07, 201212Year Member
Posts: 3,732
Reputation Power: 362
Glock- wroteCioran wroteNot subtracted from the military as a hole. It needs to be distributed more evenly.Glock- wroteCioran wrotei respect that, I do.Illustrated wroteCioran wrote
From what I have seen a lot of the money invested in the US military goes towards vehicles, like fighter jets.
What else, if not weapons and equipment, does this money go towards?
This is a genuine question, I'm not trying to catch you out or anything.
I just don't understand how that much money can go on everything except what it should be prioritised towards.
We're a big country, and we (arguably) lead the world. A country like that needs a big military like our. And the more men you have means the more spending. The military funding goes to uniforms, food, and pay for the troops as well.. not just vehicles and weapons.
I'm getting from you and Glock- that spending goes mainly towards pay, food, bombs, the navy and the airforce.
If you were to end up in a war tomorrow with another major superpower which weapons would be the most effective. Would it be your boots on the ground and their equipment or the bombs from the airforce, etc. ?
If it is your boots on the ground then wouldn't it be better to re-allocate the funds and balance them across all areas of the military, rather than pouring it into one area while other areas are deprived?
If it is the air force and bombing then wouldn't you rather that money goes towards that area, rather than troop equipment?
Either way I don't see why military spending needs to be increased when the only problem seems to be mis-allocation of funds, rather than the pot not being full enough to adequately equip all areas.
Glock-, I understand that you are highly educated when it comes to military spending which is why I'm asking you guys these questions, rather than going to a random website which could be throwing its own spin on things. I trust that you, as a staunch arbiter of truth and justice, will not deceive me.
We need to subtract some funds from the navy and Airforce and focus on the Army and Marines. We need updated technology and equipment
When you say subtract you don't then mean that the amount of money currently being allocated to the US military in total needs to be increased. It just needs to be distributed more evenly?
Because if that's what you're saying then I would completely agree.
I don't understand why a lot of republicans say that military spending needs to be increased overall if the problem can be solved without increasing the amount spent allowing that leftover money to go to other areas which need it, like healthcare, or education.
I think we agree.
Say, for example, that 70% of the military budget went towards the airforce and navy while 30% went towards the army and marines you would just want those two percentages to be an equal 50% each using the same overall budget?
If that's what you mean then we agree.
I know you have said that you have lost all respect for me, but I hope that this has shown you that we are capable of having decent conversations with one another and that we can continue to engage like this in the future.
- 0useful
- 0not useful
#44. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Apr 30, 201410Year Member
Posts: 5,950
Reputation Power: 15113
Status: Offline
Joined: Apr 30, 201410Year Member
Posts: 5,950
Reputation Power: 15113
Tywin wroteHalo wrote I feel like all those protestors causing issues need to go home. He's your president now.
If only there were a inalienable right written down in a document that the country governs by that secured those people's right to protest..... oh right.
Yea, they have the right. But that right goes out the window when they decide to start burning down buildings and getting into fights with other citizens.
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
- 0useful
- 0not useful
#45. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 28, 201014Year Member
Posts: 2,245
Reputation Power: 257
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 28, 201014Year Member
Posts: 2,245
Reputation Power: 257
Cioran wroteI have no problem communicating with you.Glock- wroteCioran wroteNot subtracted from the military as a hole. It needs to be distributed more evenly.Glock- wroteCioran wrotei respect that, I do.Illustrated wroteCioran wrote
From what I have seen a lot of the money invested in the US military goes towards vehicles, like fighter jets.
What else, if not weapons and equipment, does this money go towards?
This is a genuine question, I'm not trying to catch you out or anything.
I just don't understand how that much money can go on everything except what it should be prioritised towards.
We're a big country, and we (arguably) lead the world. A country like that needs a big military like our. And the more men you have means the more spending. The military funding goes to uniforms, food, and pay for the troops as well.. not just vehicles and weapons.
I'm getting from you and Glock- that spending goes mainly towards pay, food, bombs, the navy and the airforce.
If you were to end up in a war tomorrow with another major superpower which weapons would be the most effective. Would it be your boots on the ground and their equipment or the bombs from the airforce, etc. ?
If it is your boots on the ground then wouldn't it be better to re-allocate the funds and balance them across all areas of the military, rather than pouring it into one area while other areas are deprived?
If it is the air force and bombing then wouldn't you rather that money goes towards that area, rather than troop equipment?
Either way I don't see why military spending needs to be increased when the only problem seems to be mis-allocation of funds, rather than the pot not being full enough to adequately equip all areas.
Glock-, I understand that you are highly educated when it comes to military spending which is why I'm asking you guys these questions, rather than going to a random website which could be throwing its own spin on things. I trust that you, as a staunch arbiter of truth and justice, will not deceive me.
We need to subtract some funds from the navy and Airforce and focus on the Army and Marines. We need updated technology and equipment
When you say subtract you don't then mean that the amount of money currently being allocated to the US military in total needs to be increased. It just needs to be distributed more evenly?
Because if that's what you're saying then I would completely agree.
I don't understand why a lot of republicans say that military spending needs to be increased overall if the problem can be solved without increasing the amount spent allowing that leftover money to go to other areas which need it, like healthcare, or education.
I think we agree.
Say, for example, that 70% of the military budget went towards the airforce and navy while 30% went towards the army and marines you would just want those two percentages to be an equal 50% each using the same overall budget?
If that's what you mean then we agree.
I know you have said that you have lost all respect for me, but I hope that this has shown you that we are capable of having decent conversations with one another and that we can continue to engage like this in the future.
But it needs to be evened out. If we had better equipment more people would want to enlist and honestly, i would have stayed in.
- 0useful
- 0not useful
#46. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Mar 09, 201212Year Member
Posts: 5,781
Reputation Power: 5268
Motto: Consume Tacobell. Play RuneScape.
Motto: Consume Tacobell. Play RuneScape.
Status: Offline
Joined: Mar 09, 201212Year Member
Posts: 5,781
Reputation Power: 5268
Motto: Consume Tacobell. Play RuneScape.
Im ready to make america great again
- 3useful
- 0not useful
#47. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 30, 20158Year Member
Posts: 3,745
Reputation Power: 4643
Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 30, 20158Year Member
Posts: 3,745
Reputation Power: 4643
Glock- wrotePeople are protesting Trump saying how he is going to destroy America, yet they are the ones burning down buildings and smashing windows and assaulting people due to who they voted for.
Need i say more?
Best statement all day
- 0useful
- 0not useful
#48. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 25, 201410Year Member
Posts: 4,817
Reputation Power: 7349
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 25, 201410Year Member
Posts: 4,817
Reputation Power: 7349
As far as military spending goes, it does seem to be pretty un-even but rightfully so. I think that the Navy and Air force is our primary forms of both attack and defense so they need the best possible equipment. One of the major issues is that should we spend 70% of our budget on those two only leaving enough for the bare essentials for the Marines / Army? Or should we be splitting it evenly so each branch can progress? It makes sense either way, but of course when there's multiple ways of looking at it, there are multiple opinions.
Of course none of us are experts in any sort of government funding, some people here have first hand experience with what they are spending the money on and others don't.
Of course none of us are experts in any sort of government funding, some people here have first hand experience with what they are spending the money on and others don't.
- 1useful
- 0not useful
#49. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 14, 201410Year Member
Posts: 1,453
Reputation Power: 440
Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 14, 201410Year Member
Posts: 1,453
Reputation Power: 440
I don't care. The president is just the Governments little puppet anyways
- 0useful
- 3not useful
#50. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 14, 201410Year Member
Posts: 1,453
Reputation Power: 440
Tywin wroteHalo wrote I feel like all those protestors causing issues need to go home. He's your president now.
If only there were a inalienable right written down in a document that the country governs by that secured those people's right to protest..... oh right.
If only there was an amendment that supported breaking windows
- 0useful
- 1not useful
You are viewing our Forum Archives. To view or take place in current topics click here.