U.S. Politics Thread

[synaesthetic]

$20,000 for a hammer, $50,000 for a toilet seat.

[Ithekro]

And the hammer is assigned to be used on the toilet seat.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Badkarma 1

Last time I looked, they were wantin to replace the 40yr old M-16 with somethin newer.
Spec Ops got the SCAR, Marines got a new squad automatic weapon M-27 to replace the vaunted M-249. And JSOC was testin the HK 416.
Meanwhile DHS has gotten somethin like 1.6 billion rounds of ammo stored through out the U.S. and Congress is askin "WHY?!!"
Kinda makes ya wonder where the money's going huh?

Not sure what point you're trying to make, we shouldn't update our weapons?

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Not sure what point you're trying to make, we shouldn't update our weapons?

I think than his point is the storing of1.6 billions bullets while they are gettting new weapons but is kind of bogus, no ? Aren't the SCAR, M27 and HK 416 using the same ammo than the old M16 /M4 ?

[Badkarma 1]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Not sure what point you're trying to make, we shouldn't update our weapons?

Of course we should! The M-16 family is closein on 50, and its time for something new!
Problem is, how do you improve on a very modular design!

Originally Posted by ganbaru

I think than his point is the storing of1.6 billions bullets while they are gettting new weapons but is kind of bogus, no ? Aren't the SCAR, M27 and HK 416 using the same ammo than the old M16 /M4 ?

Affirmative! All those mentioned do use the 5.56x45mm NATO round.

Also there are still some scuttlebutt that they're wantin to replace the M-9 Beretta AGAIN! Maybe we'll follow the Brits and get the Glock.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Not sure what point you're trying to make, we shouldn't update our weapons?

Whoa, you want an Arms Race?

[Badkarma 1]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Whoa, you want an Arms Race?

Considerin the amount of BS and under the table/back door lobbyin that went durin the last procurement trials, I wouldn't call it an Arms Race, I'd call it a horse race!

[ganbaru]

Speaking of the US millitary...
Outraged lawmakers look to change military justice
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...04-30-03-14-34

On both sides of the Capitol, lawmakers have interpreted Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's recent proposal to essentially strip commanding officers of their ability to reverse criminal convictions of service members as an opening to revise the decades-old Uniform Code of Military Justice.

[achirist]

The US military is a terrorist organization, a racist colonial front that needs to be shut down. Right wing war criminals need to be put in jail, the foreign bases closed.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by achirist

The US military is a terrorist organization, a racist colonial front that needs to be shut down. Right wing war criminals need to be put in jail, the foreign bases closed.

Nice wildly inaccurate hyperbole you got there.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by achirist

The US military is a terrorist organization, a racist colonial front that needs to be shut down. Right wing war criminals need to be put in jail, the foreign bases closed.

I am no fan of the American military, but I don't see them as worse than most other nation's armies. It's just that they are richer than normal and can do what they wanted. Other countries don't have populations willing to starve themselves and die from lack of healthcare in order to give the military more money.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by achirist

The US military is a terrorist organization, a racist colonial front that needs to be shut down. Right wing war criminals need to be put in jail, the foreign bases closed.

Start with Congress, who push to have these kinds of things implemented. The decision to expand or downsize comes from there. Even if the military ever wants to expand -- it cannot do so on its own, without approval.

And here's a funny article:

Army says no to more tanks, but Congress insists

Millions added by Congress for unwanted tanks highlights challenge of trimming military budget

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Built to dominate the enemy in combat, the Army's hulking Abrams tank is proving equally hard to beat in a budget battle.

Lawmakers from both parties have devoted nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money over the past two years to build improved versions of the 70-ton Abrams.

But senior Army officials have said repeatedly, "No thanks."

http://news.yahoo.com/army-says-no-m...115434897.html

The army's objection to having more tanks -- that comes with the idea of diverting money spent on tanks, for other things.

Yet in the case of the Abrams tank, there's a bipartisan push to spend an extra $436 million on a weapon the experts explicitly say is not needed.

"If we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way," Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, told The Associated Press this past week.

Why are the tank dollars still flowing? Politics.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

The US military spending is the very definition of Pork Barrelling. Which ironically means that the military gets a lot of money but not necessarily getting what they wanted. Because it is all about benefiting as many states as possible rather than actually helping soldiers doing their jobs.

[synaesthetic]

Pork barreling aside, one of the main reasons the EU can get away with so little military is because American tax dollars pay for so much military.

I'd gladly shrink America's military--we all know it's bloated wildly out of control. But the downside of actually shrinking it would be most felt by Europe.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Pork barreling aside, one of the main reasons the EU can get away with so little military is because American tax dollars pay for so much military.

I'd gladly shrink America's military--we all know it's bloated wildly out of control. But the downside of actually shrinking it would be most felt by Europe.

In terms of defence? Not likely an issue. Europe has plenty of slack to give their troops something to do. And even serious cuts wouldn't notably weaken the US military presence.

Economically? There is no reason why the money saved can't be spent elsewhere that still offers jobs and growth.

[synaesthetic]

Hey, I'm all for it, but try to convince our government to do that. Talk about mission impossible.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Hey, I'm all for it, but try to convince our government to do that. Talk about mission impossible.

The issue is that military pork is somehow immune from scrutiny, so politicians use "support our troops" as a smokescreen to benefit their own states.

The first step is to recognise that pork is pork, no matter what you buy with it.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Pork barreling aside, one of the main reasons the EU can get away with so little military is because American tax dollars pay for so much military.

I'd gladly shrink America's military--we all know it's bloated wildly out of control. But the downside of actually shrinking it would be most felt by Europe.

Yet, there's an interesting paradox regarding military spending. The greater spent on the military -- the less spent on other things for the country, particularly domestic. For example, if just 10% of the military's budget is spent on education, then the country would go pretty far.

Hell. Imagine if NASA had 5% of the military's budget...

Anyways, the British Empire used to have a navy policy, where the empire literally budgeted its military spending to equal that (or be greater) than rival empires, particularly that of Germany. But look where it got the British Empire, it came apart after WW2.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Yet, there's an interesting paradox regarding military spending. The greater spent on the military -- the less spent on other things for the country, particularly domestic. For example, if just 10% of the military's budget is spent on education, then the country would go pretty far.

Hell. Imagine if NASA had 5% of the military's budget...

Anyways, the British Empire used to have a navy policy, where the empire literally budgeted its military spending to equal that (or be greater) than rival empires, particularly that of Germany. But look where it got the British Empire, it came apart after WW2.

At least the navy policy gave the Navy what they wanted. The crazy part is that the US military pork is all about benefiting the manufacturers. It would be like if the British navy was forced to buy ships because some politician has a lot of shipyards in his district.

It still boggles the mind that the Space Shuttle needed to contain parts manufactured in all 50 States. What kind of crazy requirement is that? It makes communism look efficient in comparison.

[synaesthetic]

Sometimes we can get pretty stupid about symbolism, I guess. That is staggeringly inefficient, though. I didn't know that was such a requirement for the shuttle.