How has Obama weakened our military?

Yeah, this is the most recent BS rumor going around. I’m looking forward to the answers.

If anything has weakened the military, it is sequestration, caused by a congress that forgot the concept of compromise and statesmanship. A budget cut to the military isn’t a bad thing when you already spend more than the next 10 nations combined.

He gets blamed for everything that’s bad, even if it’s something that started in motion prior to his presidency. Everything good, he gets no credit for. Haters gonna hate.

Hm. And God gets blamed in the opposite way~He gets all the credit for the good, but not the bad. This is proof positive that Obama is the anti-christ.

What are you saying @Dutchess_III ?? That Obama is the Anti-Christ???

YES! And a damned good one, too.

Obama has weakened the US military by not allowing it to grow even larger than it already has, by not providing more weapons than they already have and by not maintaining large standing armies who sit idly by and twiddle their thumbs but are ready to descend, like the ravaging Barbarian hordes of old, upon despotic regimes, up and coming empires and old cold war adversaries that find new life.

Here are a shit-pot full of charts comparing the military budget of the US with everything and everyone else. Except the Klingons, I could not find anything on them.

A brief synopsis: Spending on the military is down but is still way higher than it was 15 years ago and even now is way more than most of the combined military spending of most of the rest of the world, and most of those fuckers are Allies.

Thank you @rojo ..However, at first glance I read, ”... ready to descend, like the ravaging Barbie hordes of old…” I was like, like, what?

You cannot blame Obama or any other single person for the strength or weakness of our military. The House controls the purse strings of our nation so if you have any concerns of the state of our military you should write your Representative.

Secondly, the direction of our military policies are often influenced by the whiplash sentiments of the American public. 14 years ago it was “Kill Saddam”! Once that mission was completed American sentiments turned against the war effort in Iraq and the demand for troop withdrawal commenced. We killed Osama Bin Laden….Hooray went the American Public! The conflict in Afghanistan suddenly lost it’s luster. So is one man responsible for this roller coaster of blood lust and revulsion towards our conflicts overseas? No…we are and we are the enemy.

And since we are throwing around charts, this one should put your mind at ease that we are in no way even close to being a “weakened” military force.

I would really like to see the past presidents deal with a whole new type of warfare and terrorism that NO ONE has had to deal with before in history. It makes the horrid atrocities of prior wars look like pre-school. There is a simple fact that advisors from BOTH parties, military, experts ect. all have imput on military decisions, good or bad.
Yet today, the US is dealing with the fallout from previous administrations and governing body’s actions and decisions, that we- the US- helped to created in this area.
On this whole Middle East situation, it’s unchartered territory. This has never been the way the US has conducted military affairs before. They have enough to bomb the living sh** out of key targets- keeping troops safer than conducting a war with the ‘old means and rules’.
It really pisses me off calling a President something like that Dutchess!
That is uncalled for and freaking rude!
You don’t like what’s happening- fine!
But to call someone – anyone- the ‘Anti-Christ’ .... You have stepped waaaay outta line.
Shame on you.
Times have changed. Wars have changed. And not all in a good way.
We don’t know ¼ th of all that is going on here nor around the world.
We never will, either.
Trying to blame the world’s problems on one person?
One party?
Seriously?
I think that this all just convinced me to go out and campaign the hell out of getting my candidate elected….

I dont know how much it takes of the big picture of the defense budget, there seema to be an awful lot of contractors everywhere I looked. And that was 13 years ago. Im told by recently separated vets that tell me its worse than it was. Contractors are tons more expensive than regular troops.

Only sayin’ this ‘cuz it’s social:

Benghazi and his constant need to bow to Mecca 5 times a day

At least he can count to 5.
Your excuse?
What- nothing about any birth certificate?

@Cruiser The vast majority of the country was against the Iraq War, so I don’t think you can blame that one on wavering American sentiments. Most of the guys shouting “Kill Saddam!” were in the administration.

@msh Just so you know, the people you’re responding to are joking.

Who’s yelling, Sweetie?

Majorrich- would you explain more please? I want to hear more on what you mentioned. How is this changing things? Will shifting intent here- effect it there? A journalist said that the contractors are like soldiers- but no rules. ???? I would love to hear from someone who’s been there, done that. If you would, please.

He may have some great ideas about what must be done but no idea at all about actual application or subsequent consequences.

Could you be more specific @kritiper? What do you mean “he has no idea.” He doesn’t have to come up with ideas all by himself.

@Dutchess_III Remember “clean coal?” Getting rid of the CO2 was a great idea but the technology isn’t here just yet. Remember “Cash for Clunkers?” So many good, usable cars were junked that could have helped poor people drive more fuel efficient, cleaner cars.
See what I mean? He has a great swing but no follow-through!

@kritiper You act like “getting rid of the CO2” should be something he could accomplish in a couple of years. No, the technology isn’t here yet but it is in progress, thanks to his initiatives. He’s done more to realize that goal than any other president. If you can afford to buy, for example, a new, more efficient heating system for your home, or anything for your home that will help it to run more efficiently, with less energy, you can deduct that on your taxes. Has that incentive always been around?

Could you explain the “Cash for Clunkers” idea? It’s been a while and I don’t really remember it. It’s just a buzz word now for shady used car guys.

@JeSuisRickSpringfield The vast majority of the American public and Congress to boot was on board with the Iraq war and all including Britain were hoodwinked by emotional and erroneous information over weapons of mass destruction. It took years and many service men’s lives for us to realize we were had by a select few with an agenda the true purpose of I feel has yet to be revealed.

I was never in a combat zone, so don’t have direct knowledge of contractors on the ground with our combat troops. At the time I was involved. Contractors took care of our telecom, laundry, food services a lot of office stuff and it seemed I was always running into people with a contractor badge on. (I was what they call an ‘office pogue’) It really didn’t affect me except that I knew these guys were making hella bucks compared to my meager wage. I wasn’t in Iraq for very long. but I think perhaps outsourcing of functions may be considered weakening of our military because they don’t get a chance to do the jobs they normally would if there weren’t civilian contractors doing it. I think it may even affect re-enlistments because a guy could run his enlistment out and directly sign on with a contractor, do the same work and make bucks deluxe. I just wanted to come home. And like I said before that was a long time ago. Things probably have changed a lot since then.

Thank you so very much. I appreciate your answering my questions. It really makes me think on some things, and I will be doing so on this subject for awhile, I imagine.
I can’t even begin to imagine what intricate designs have been set up there, and what it really costs in the long run. I’m really not too sure those who make decisions think of all the aspects and effects. But have they ever, really?
Again, thank you for answering my questions. I hope I have not caused any undue thoughts best left as done and gone. I appreciate your time. I appreciate your service. Thank you. Take care~

@msh Re your reaction to the post by @Dutchess_III: ”~He gets all the credit for the good, but not the bad. This is proof positive that Obama is the anti-christ.”

Notice that she prefaced her comment with a tilde (~). This symbol has traditionally been used here in the tidepool to indicate sarcasm.

@msh thought I was serious? Oh, that’s too funny. The assumptions he or she made must have led them to the conclusion that I believe in magic and shit.

You mean you don’t believe in Santa, or was it the sh**? Or Santa’s….
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you for the ’~’ info, I really do appreciate it.
I was aware of that.
Maybe those earlier two responseS weren’t…. for lack of a better word…..humorous?

He was the shit when I was four. So was the Easter Bunny, as long as I didn’t think too logically about it all.

@Dutchess_III “Cash for Clunkers” was a plan to help the auto manufacturers but they, the makers, wanted all cars traded in to be destroyed (wasted) as part of the agreement. So rich people got new cars on a special deal and the poor folks who could have used the newer, safer, cleaner cars that were traded in got zilch. If the older cars would have been resold, less CO2 would have been dumped into the atmosphere, more fuel resources conserved, less lives lost in less safe vehicles, less pollution.

The weakness of the military depends entirely upon what benchmark you are using to determine strength.
If your benchmark is to protect the US and US citizens then we are strong.
If your benchmark is to BE PREPARED to fight two major conflicts on opposite sides of the globe then we are probably, in your opinion, somewhat undersized.
If your benchmark is total world domination then we are too puny to even think about.

@kritiper It kind of sounds like you’re talking in circles. If someone turns in a clunker because it’s inefficient and pours too much CO2 into the air, and that clunker gets resold, then it’s a wash.
Also, manufacturers can make a killing on used cars, so I don’t understand their logic for trashing them.

@Dutchess_III I think you need to think of the clunkers on a graduated scale.

If they offered the same deal today and I traded in a 2008 model that put out 1 lb/mile of CO2 for a 2016 one that only put out .5lb/mile and you had a 2000 model that was putting out 2lb/mile. Between the two of us we would have gone from 3 lb/mile to 2.5lb/mile, only reduced the amount we put into the air by .5lb/mile and the 2008 would have been scrapped.

If instead of destroying my old clunker you able to trade your 2000 in for my old 2008 then we reduce our combined total an additional 1lb/mile and gone from 3 to 1.5 lbs/mile doing ourselves and the rest of the world a favor.

And, then yours could have been traded for a 1995 that was still on the road reducing the CO2 even further.

Well…as far as a government initiative, it was sure to fail. It simply turned into a sales pitch for the car dealers. There is a guy around here that still uses the mantra. As far as I know, he doesn’t trash them.

You know, somethings work, and some things don’t. He tried!

Then there is all the Velcro they have incorporated into the new BDU. It is now impossible to be stealthy without SKKKERRRRREEEEIIIIIKKKKKKK of velcro every time you need something from your pockets. The pattern is the shit. So they can hear you but can’t find where the sound came from.

Somebody needs to invent stealth Velcro….

@Dutchess_III You still don’t get it! A 1985 Nissan probably gets worse gas mileage than a 2000. Rich people traded in their low-mileage 2000’s, which were in excellent condition but got junked, and the poor had to keep driving the 1985’s. ONLY THE RICH BENFITED because they were the only ones who could afford to trade in their nice, slightly used, slightly older cars for brand spanking new ones! There are MANY people in this world who cannot afford NEW CARS!

@Cruiser The “vast majority”? I don’t think so. “Majority” means “more than 50%.” So “vast majority” must mean something like “more than 75%” (if we’re being generous). At no point prior to the invasion was there more than 75% support for the war. In fact, the only point at which support was that high was May of 2003 (two months after the initial invasion). This was shortly after Saddam had been deposed and his statue torn down. So Americans were riding high on short-term success (and probably would have felt silly expressing distaste for the war so soon after it had begun and so close to such a large propaganda victory). But this was the only high point, and support went into a rapid free fall in the months after.

Prior to the invasion, however, we see a much different story. In January of 2003, only 31% of Americans supported a unilateral invasion. By February, the number had only increased to 37% despite Colin Powell’s infamous speech before the UN and the rise in Bush’s approval rating following his State of the Union address. That’s well below a majority, and nowhere close to a vast majority. Even worse, there was greater support for removing Saddam in the February prior to September 11th, 2001 than there was two years later in February of 2003. Back in February of 2001, 52% of Americans supported the use of American troops to depose Saddam Hussein.

That last number is slightly misleading. Polls at the time weren’t distinguishing between a unilateral invasion and a UN-supported one. And indeed, the polls just prior to the 2003 invasion revealed that Americans would have been much more supportive of the Iraq War had it been undertaken with international support (60% of Americans would have supported the war if the international community agreed that it was absolutely necessary). But their support was conditional, and that condition was never met. It is therefore probably safe to conclude that the 52% who supported using American troops to depose Saddam in February of 2001 were assuming international support and UN approval. That would mean there was consistent support for international action ranging from 52–60% (still not a “vast majority,” but at least a majority), but there was never widespread support for a unilateral invasion.

I did get it @kritiper. I don’t know which part of ”It simply turned into a sales pitch for the car dealers. There is a guy around here that still uses the mantra. As far as I know, he doesn’t trash them…” made you think I don’t get it.

@JeSuisRickSpringfield Since you presented the contrast of those in favor of invading Iraq I should clarify that I based my comment on the overall support of Americans and the UN council where I remember that as being quite strong at the time. I found an article on a Gallup poll that states that it was as high as 78% at one time. Though American support for the invasion without UN support never got higher than 64%. Still pretty high but not quite the “vast majority” threshold you maintain.

@Cruiser “not quite the “vast majority” threshold you maintain”

Um, I got the “vast majority” thing from you. You claimed the vast majority supported the war, and I pointed out that you were wrong.

”I found an article on a Gallup poll that states that it was as high as 78% at one time.”

Look at the details: that number assumes UN approval. But the Iraq War was a unilateral effort, which never had majority (or vast majority) support.

Apparently you are only interested in your answer @JeSuisRickSpringfield as I did qualify that very poll number in my answer which you obviously didn’t bother to read.

Though American support for the invasion without UN support never got higher than 64%.

64% is still a “HUGE”~ number IMO.

@Cruiser I read the whole answer. I focused on the 78% number because you presented it as if it were relevant when it’s not. We were talking about support for the Iraq War, which was a unilateral action taken by the United States. Support for a hypothetical military action that involved the UN has no bearing on that discussion.

I didn’t talk about the 64% number because you had already admitted that it couldn’t support your original contention. But since you brought it up again, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a huge number or not. Again, you need to look at the details. The question that got that level of response was not about a unilateral invasion. It was about general support for removing Saddam Hussein from power. Time and time again, when the question specified a unilateral action, public support for an invasion was never high.

@JeSuisRickSpringfield As much as you want to rewrite history and refuse to acknowledge the fevered pitch that I say again the vast majority of Americans who wanted retribution for that fateful day on Sept 11, 2011. I was in a plane when this happened and I remember vividly the shock and hatred all of America felt towards the perps that ruptured the sanctity of our homeland and took so many innocent lives. The bloodlust was palatable all across the fabric of our country and so very few at the time wanted anything less than revenge, Say what you want 14 years later to reflect whatever pacifist views you may hold today…you are entitled to do so. But if you have to support your opinions and views on biased polls that are IMO not based on reality and more so on ideology today than what was really coursing though the veins of the vast majority of Americans in the days, weeks, months after 9/11….you lose my interest to discuss this any flurther.

@Cruiser This is getting tedious. I have not once denied that Americans wanted retribution. People were angry and they wanted Osama bin Laden. But that’s what Afghanistan was about. That invasion had huge support. But it’s not the same invasion, nor the same war, as Iraq. If you think otherwise, then you are the one rewriting history.

At this point, though, it is obvious you have nothing to stand on. You are just making vague accusations in the hope something will stick. I am not a pacifist. I just know how to read numbers. The polls tell us that there was never majority support for a unilateral invasion of Iraq. Furthermore, I’m using the same polls as you. They’re not modern inventions. They were taken at the time the decision was being made. And if you doubt them, then you shouldn’t post them as support.

And I see you’ve run away from Fluther again. I guess facts really do tire you out.