Vast, Overwhelming Majority of Americans favor immediate, deep and lasting cuts to military....

A cursory check reveals that the Huffington Post considers "the Cemter for Public Integrity" a non-partisan organization...That means they are left leaning... like the Huffington Post.

And, the guy who runs the organization has a history of working for organizations that lean left.

So, bottom line, I'm not suprised that found what they found...

Their bias aside, are the American people willing to settle for our military becoming a second rate organization?

Is the left willing to allow murderous dictators to commit genocide in 3rd world countries without interference from the US militarily?

Are we ready to stop projecting our military power? I am... but I'm conservative.

Liberals have a habit of advocating solutions that have a predictable consequence yet..... when it happens, they are shocked and find it unacceptable and demand anther solution... which causes a whole nother set of problems.... and the cycle goes on and on. Getting more expensive every step of the way.

Making serious cuts to our military is NOT... absolutely NOT going to solve our budget deficit.

Just like taking everything the top 1% have will not balance our budet. We have a spending problem (outside the military)... Social programs and entitlements are going to have to be cut if we're going to balance our budget or atleast get our deficits down to a manageable level.

To make this study meaningful, they should have done a parrallel study asking if Americans wanted to reduce spending in other areas... And, we could compare the results. But, being a liberal organization, they didn't want to ask that question!

This post was edited on 5/16 7:00 AM by original hambone

We need more cuts than that!

I do not think we need deep cuts in the military, after all, we have been using guard and reserve troops for ten years now. But we do need to quit now, being the policeman of the world and "regime changing" for political reasons.

I would like us to withdraw from Germany, Japan, Korea the Middle East and use our military as a DEFENSIVE force.

Most of the money spent by the military that we can save is not in cuts to the military, but using them as a defensive force at home and cut out all the terrible expense is fighting wars on other people's turf.

So I propose not to cut the military, but quit using it all over the world at a terrible expense. That would save billions of dollars and preserve our safety. Without actual cuts in personall we could save a lot of money.
And I think we should build more practical weapons than some like that new fighter that apparently is not even safe to fly.

Full results and poll here, seems to be presented in a non-partisan manner. It was a joint effort of three groups: the Center for Public Integrity, the Program for Public Consultation and the Stimson Center.

---

Originally posted by ZenHog:
Full results and poll here, seems to be presented in a non-partisan manner. It was a joint effort of three groups: the Center for Public Integrity, the Program for Public Consultation and the Stimson Center.

---

If it was really non-partisan, asking if they wanted to cut military spending should have been one question somewhere in a long list of do you want to cut ..... questions.

Then, we could compare the desire to cut military spending versus other programs.


And like I asked, are Americans ready to accept being a second rate power to say Russia and China?

Will the liberals be willing to turn a blind eye to genocide in 3rd world countries?

Or, if Iran decideded to take over Iraq, Kuwait and half of Saudi Arabia...
(the half that produces oil)?

Just like in California when they could puff their chest out because they had sworn off building electric power plants. They were "Goin' Green!!!" they placed mother earth over and above those greedy capitalists power plants etc. etc. They were the leaders in green etc. etc. On and on they bragged. Right up until the air conditioners went out and then they got busy and built them some power plants.

Liberals talk the talk right up until they feel a little pain... then, they aren't so committed.

So, what happens if Iran takes over Iraq, Kuwait, and half of Saudi Arabia and gas goes to $10.00 a gallon and we don't have the military capacity to just go in there with overwhelming force and kick their butts? What will liberals say then?

Interesting, that last paragraph was the basis for "Three Days of the
Condor"

But let me ask, Ham. If Iran took over all the oil in the middle East, to whom would they sell it if we boycotted them? I think even Russia would go along with a boycott and thus, Iran would have no bargaining position at all.

---

Originally posted by bobhawg:
Interesting, that last paragraph was the basis for "Three Days of the
Condor"

But let me ask, Ham. If Iran took over all the oil in the middle East, to whom would they sell it if we boycotted them? I think even Russia would go along with a boycott and thus, Iran would have no bargaining position at all.

---

I don't Russia, China nor India would boycotte them.

And, like I said, that boycotte thing sounds good right up until gas goes up.

If Iran controlled Iraq, Kuwait, and half of Saudi, they'd have us by the balls.

I do think a boycott woudl work, but if it did not, then, finally, we would actually have a reason to go to war. A declared war. One in which we send no ground troops, but on the first day destroy Iran's cities and coastal areas and railroads and industry. Then I bet the oil would flow.

---

Originally posted by bobhawg:
I do think a boycott woudl work, but if it did not, then, finally, we would actually have a reason to go to war. A declared war. One in which we send no ground troops, but on the first day destroy Iran's cities and coastal areas and railroads and industry. Then I bet the oil would flow.

---

If we don't have the conventional forces to do the job... what's left? Nuclear.

Do you think we'd have the guts to go nuclear?

No nukes, but I do think we have enough B2s, even old B52s, cruise missiles etc. that could do the job.

Actually, I am not for any war, but seriously, I think our efforts in the last 40 years in the Middle East have been poorly executed and misguided. To say the least.

Short of anything terrible, I think getting gas guzzlers off the roads replaced with 40MPG vehicles would be good, and if need be short term, ration gas until we can supply our own needs. I think that would require upgrading our refineries, yes, maybe more drilling, a faster switch to natural gas and new exploration of shale etc. And I do wish there was a way to get rid of the commodities market.

But until our political game is improved vastly, nothing is going to happen.

I understand how you feel.

If we do go the air campaign route, there will be a lot of "innocent" civillians killed and we will be the villians to the rest of the world AND to many of our own citizens.

Depending on the price of gas, it takes a LOT of driving to justify the cost of buying a new car even if it gets 40mpg. If you have to pay $10,000 extra for that kind of mileage over say a 30mpg car.

We have the refining capacity it appears because it is my understanding that we are exporting refined gasoline now. Hard to believe but that's what I'm reading.

The only thing wrong with naturl gas is that we lack the infrastructure and it's low energy density. It takes a big tank to run on natural gas.

I don't understand the infrastructure problem with natural gas? Almost any town of size has natural gas piped to homes. Why would it be difficult for gas stations in almost every town to sell it at the pump and for people to be able to refill at home if they had natural gas service at home and wanted to buy the compressor? Of course I know very little about using NG as an automotive fuel.

In the late 70's the father of a friend of mine had a NG truck that used both gasoline and NG. If you ran out of one fuel you switched to the other. You can have kits installed today. The biggest problem is that it takes a good sized fuel tank.

Honda has a NG only Civic and North Little Rock has a public NG station.

---

Originally posted by PeteJC:
I don't understand the infrastructure problem with natural gas? Almost any town of size has natural gas piped to homes. Why would it be difficult for gas stations in almost every town to sell it at the pump and for people to be able to refill at home if they had natural gas service at home and wanted to buy the compressor? Of course I know very little about using NG as an automotive fuel.

In the late 70's the father of a friend of mine had a NG truck that used both gasoline and NG. If you ran out of one fuel you switched to the other. You can have kits installed today. The biggest problem is that it takes a good sized fuel tank.

Honda has a NG only Civic and North Little Rock has a public NG station.

---

I think the biggest problem for NG,,, besides having to give up most of your trunk for a gas tank is the infrastructure.

People could install compressors at their house but what do you do if your out on the road and run out of fuel?

It's kind of the chicken or the egg problem. There aren't enough vehicles running on NG to warrant gas stations adding the tank and pump. And since there aren't any gas stations selling NG... the auto manufacturers aren't going out on a limb and produce cars that run on NG...

BTW, there are three or four stations arround N. Louisiana that are selling NG...

I think the natural place to start with NG is with fleet sales. City buses, etc.

OH: "If it was really non-partisan, asking if they wanted to cut military spending should have been one question somewhere in a long list of do you want to cut ..... questions."

Unless they wanted to poll on that issue alone. Is it somehow "liberal" to ask Republicans and Democrats if they want to cut military spending and the vast majority of ALL of them say yes???

OH: "Will the liberals be willing to....."

67% of Republicans polled wanted to cut military spending...