Mohmar Deathstrike
Banned
What countries have S-300? I could only find one shady article about Iran having them. But no sources were given.Rabs said:
Should military spending be reduced?
- Status
Mohmar Deathstrike
Banned
Ah okay. I thought the discussion was revolving around non-nuclear possible enemies of the USA.Rabs said:
Senior Chief
Banned
Rabs said:
In reading what you can on the internet it looks like the S-300 and the Patriot systems are very similar. The Patriot system has been a proven system for some years and has had some upgrades to reflect the new threats that are out there. I don't know if the S-300 has been modified much past the mid 90's
Rob Henderson
Banned
The discussion was revolving around military spending. Threads like this are often turned about. My two cents: When we have eliminated those "starving children in 3rd world country" ads of off TV, then we can spend money on jet fighters and tanks and ships and advanced weaponry systems.Mohmar Deathstrike said:
Damien435
Active member
Tell you what, Cadet, you find a why to somehow feed a continent of one billion without causing food prices back home in the US to sky rocket and I may just go along with your idea, but in the meantime I prefer to see my money going into an investment that has both immediate and longterm potential to pay off.
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
C/1Lt Henderson said:
Ok, I've stopped laughing now... whew, that was priceless. It has been proven repeatedly that since prior to 1992 there were already too many people on the Earth and that even if ALL arable land were put to its most efficient use producing foodstuffs and somehow it was all magically divided equally among every person there is not enough to adequately feed everyone. We would all be malnourished. However it does ease some people's guilt about being born in a land of plenty to donate a few pennies and keep no talent hacks like Sally Struthers in employment trying to "save little Mbutu". Then again I am a selfish :cen: and I just give a damn about me and my family, friends and my countrymen.
ASTRALdragon
Active member
There is a way to feed those people. It's called genetically engineered food. If those governments want to listen to Greenpeace and have their people starve rather than eat GE food, then that's their problem. Hell, 80% of the produce you buy in American grocery stores are either genetically engineered or treated with pesticides. If feeding African children is truly your concern then resign from the military and join the Peace Corps or the UN Food Program. I hear they're always looking for non-paid volunteers. :mrgreen:C/1Lt Henderson said:
WarMachine
Active member
I heard that a lot of the problems with people starving don't have to do with the food sources but getting the food to them. Nobody likes grain for dinner, but if you're malnourished then at least it's something, that's why we kept sending the grain to needy people. But warlords or gangs steal the food and people starve some more. Or the governments which get money to buy food embezzle it, crap like that. There has to be plenty of food still being grown since the world population is growing in developing countries, idk where it comes from but it's there. India and china have less arable land than the USA but they still feed a billion people each. It's the places that have the worst sort of infrastructure and governments that have food shortages all the time.
Senior Chief
Banned
For the guy that is worried about world hunger.
Do like I do, sponsor a child through Compassion International or one of the other organizations that put food in the mouths of those kids.
It's a small thing I do, but if everyone did one small thing there would be over 200,000,000 kids that didn't starve to death!
Think about it!
Do like I do, sponsor a child through Compassion International or one of the other organizations that put food in the mouths of those kids.
It's a small thing I do, but if everyone did one small thing there would be over 200,000,000 kids that didn't starve to death!
Think about it!
Rob Henderson
Banned
I've already signed up, I'm waiting on the information packet about my child. I absolutely agree. If we could all do that for one child, just one. then we would put a huge dent in the world hunger thing.Senior Chief said:
Read ASTRALdragon's post. I send money to the Peace Corps and as you can see, I've sponsored a child. Im doing my part. Are you all doing yours?bulldogg said:
ASTRALdragon
Active member
I offer them something greater than money: prayer.
Senior Chief
Banned
ASTRALdragon said:
That is typically what is done with the Compassion International kids. Most, if not all, of them are sponsored by praying Christians.
It only costs like $32 a month, a little more than a dollar a day. I piss away that much every day, why not put it to good use and then pray for the kid you support?
Rob Henderson
Banned
Exactly. I've been trying to get a representative down here to talk to my church and raise support. I know I spend at least $2.00 on food even though I get 3 squares a day, so why not sacrifice that tiny bag of Cheese-Its and give it to a child that truely needs it.
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
It is not my responsibility to feed the world. I sleep very well at night as things stand. If YOU feel the need to do something, then by all means carry on but don't touch the defense of my nation to do it.
And WM, populations growing does not mean there is enough food, it simply means people are having sex. China and India are food importers, that's how they are doing it.
And WM, populations growing does not mean there is enough food, it simply means people are having sex. China and India are food importers, that's how they are doing it.
Rob Henderson
Banned
I didn't say anything about feeding the world. I said one child. A tad more than a dollar a day, do you know how much the gov't. spends in a day? It would be enough to cover every person starving in the world. And that's not all military spending; so we wouldn't even have to touch the military funding...Although that is where a lot of it goes....
Senior Chief
Banned
C/1Lt Henderson said:
First off, get off the cut military spending rant. We need what is being spent, some of it might be considered pork barrel but without first hand knowledge of every program and every piece of equipment being procured you have no clue as to what the money is for.
As for the kids, the U.S. Govt. should not be tasked with providing funds to save the world. Those of us that have made the decision to support a kid are doing it, try to sell the rest of the country on doing a good deed. After all, it is tax deductable.
Rob Henderson
Banned
You're right, I don't know every single thing thats being bought with that money.I suppose it's my concience telling me that it's right to save starving people...Damn the human guilt.
ive been reading through this thread now, and ive gotta say that the most reasonable person here is warmachine. He makes a strong point with the basic good-intention "for man kind". Those of you that knocks him down everytime he hints in the direction for reduce US military spending, should try opening your eyes and see that, what your rightwing republicans (hawks) tell you about the world isnt everytime neccesseraly true....
Try for once and listen and evaluate criticsim to US spending instead of putting your hands over your ears end eyes going and lalalalalalala.
You just might have a revelation or two.
I have (whitout giving it too much evaluation) some suggestions of what US can do to reduce cost, and put some were its needed (like force protection materials, non-lethal weaponry, armed vehicles etc)
1. 1 multirolle aircraft (scrap the rest) this has allready been initiated with JSF. About friggin time
2. Reduce numbers of nuclear subs (like viginia class etc)
3. Reduce numbers of aircraft carriers (you do realize that one air craft carrier is almost the same size regarding the number of airplanes with most of you allies total air-force....)
4. Reduce the byrocrati like staff and such. Get f.ex common software system throughout the DoD.
5. Continune reduction of nuclear balistic missiles.
6. Retreat all US army standing forces from Germany
7. Reduce ambitions in air and speace programs. Nobody can come close to the level you are today anyway. (although I am very PRO space programs I feel it will be better that the civilian world take care of this science.)
8. Reduce the national guard. Who do you are afraid of will march over your borders.... (Keep enough to controll your own citizens in case of riots and natural disasters etc)
9. You got army, navy and air force... Do you need the marines?? Cant army and navy work thogeter when amphibious assult is neccesary? Guarding the embasies can be done with a smaller unit connected to the army.. or maybe a civilian cooperation..)
By the way: I cant wait to get "attacked" for my point number 9
10. Reduce (and reduce ALOT) number of bases on US soil.
11. Stop wasting money on huge "military only projects" with no meaning. If you keep the US military as its is today you will still be number one in the world for the next 20-30 years...
I can probably go one, but this will be it for now. I will not take any critisism to my suggestions without clearly arguments for why im wrong. Do not give me links to some goverment propaganga if you cant give me a link that disagree with link number one! In other words: To prove me wrong you must also prove me right. Maybe you learn something. I do not want to have "brainwashed" reactions like you have given Warmachine throughout this thread.
Looking forward to your reply.
Try for once and listen and evaluate criticsim to US spending instead of putting your hands over your ears end eyes going and lalalalalalala.
You just might have a revelation or two.
I have (whitout giving it too much evaluation) some suggestions of what US can do to reduce cost, and put some were its needed (like force protection materials, non-lethal weaponry, armed vehicles etc)
1. 1 multirolle aircraft (scrap the rest) this has allready been initiated with JSF. About friggin time
2. Reduce numbers of nuclear subs (like viginia class etc)
3. Reduce numbers of aircraft carriers (you do realize that one air craft carrier is almost the same size regarding the number of airplanes with most of you allies total air-force....)
4. Reduce the byrocrati like staff and such. Get f.ex common software system throughout the DoD.
5. Continune reduction of nuclear balistic missiles.
6. Retreat all US army standing forces from Germany
7. Reduce ambitions in air and speace programs. Nobody can come close to the level you are today anyway. (although I am very PRO space programs I feel it will be better that the civilian world take care of this science.)
8. Reduce the national guard. Who do you are afraid of will march over your borders.... (Keep enough to controll your own citizens in case of riots and natural disasters etc)
9. You got army, navy and air force... Do you need the marines?? Cant army and navy work thogeter when amphibious assult is neccesary? Guarding the embasies can be done with a smaller unit connected to the army.. or maybe a civilian cooperation..)
By the way: I cant wait to get "attacked" for my point number 9
10. Reduce (and reduce ALOT) number of bases on US soil.
11. Stop wasting money on huge "military only projects" with no meaning. If you keep the US military as its is today you will still be number one in the world for the next 20-30 years...
I can probably go one, but this will be it for now. I will not take any critisism to my suggestions without clearly arguments for why im wrong. Do not give me links to some goverment propaganga if you cant give me a link that disagree with link number one! In other words: To prove me wrong you must also prove me right. Maybe you learn something. I do not want to have "brainwashed" reactions like you have given Warmachine throughout this thread.
Looking forward to your reply.
- Status