5M is greater than 500M

[CitadelGrad]

Who ever said that.....WHO???

Strawman 101...

No offense colonel but you're the one who responded with the really (really) stupid "go back to the draft" comment - He is making an honest observation which only AZ has dignified with an Honest answer...

The rest of you guys are leaving me scratching my head on this one...

So what if it's volunteer only
1.4 billion on advertising is a ridiculous (beyond ridiculous) unnecessary wast....

I'm no Don Draper, but how can you say that $1.4 billion is outrageous? We can't tell whether it is too much or too little until we see some itemization and cost/benefit analysis.

[Ivytalk]

As Senator Everett Dirksen said: a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money!

[houndawg]

Indeed it is constitutionally mandated...
So why the **** are we spending 1.4 Billion on advertising something that is going to exist no matter what..?

It can't be explained logically
However it does make sense to Republicans (somehow..?)

Since its an all-volunteer force...doesn't it make sense to try and reach potential "consumers"...

Or, maybe we could save all that advertising money and just go back to a draft...

The "consumers" are the financial interests that make their money from the war business. Your GI is more of an "implementer", making war profits possible.

[houndawg]

here's what i've NEVER gotten a satisfactory answer for... why is it that EVERY other branch of the government is "full of waste fraud and abuse" and yet DoD is above scrutiny for so many so-called "fiscal conservatives"?

it's one serious contradiction... those who would otherwise be severe fiscal hawks turn in to big government apologists for one department...

Wrong, wrong and WRONG.

I've advocated on here MANY times that the DOD (along with every OTHER department in the Federal Gov't, with the exception of those that should be wholly eliminated like the EPA and the Dept of Education) should be cut a minimum of 20%. But lets be real here, we piss away more money in welfare fraud than all the funds spent to "market" a military career in all the services combined. That being said, cut it 20%, along with everything else. Let these other **** countries defend themselves for once.

And let's not forget what a large part of that welfare fraud is perpetrated by the military and Congress.

[houndawg]

I've said it here a hundred times if I've said it once:

If you want to downsize the military, then first you must downsize the mission. I would be 100% on board with that.

The problem is that we want to cut the military but stay in our position as world police (see: TTBF and others' support of the no-fly zone in Libya). The you wind up with those awful nasty contractors and war profiteers that you liberals are so loathesome about.

We can't have it both ways. If we want to save the children and abused kittens of the world then we need to keep a bloated military. If we cut the military while still playing Global Barney Fife then we have to outsource the mission to Blackwater.

Understand?

(BTW- I say get rid of the NASCAR sponsorship too, but put up more recruiting commercials in their place. Bubba NASCAR Fan does not need the message. He is already pro-military.)

Good post.

Regardless of what size the mission is it can be done with fewer bands. The military is the largest employer of musicians in the nation.

Nor do we need any recruiting commercials, all we need to do is keep the unemployment rate at the right level and we'll have a steady supply of recruits. And as a bonus (at least for those in the non-serving class), we keep civilian wages down.

[kalm]

I say we get more effective advertising out of "Red Dawn" and "Top Gun". You didn't have to be a redneck to want to fly a F15, flip off the Russkies, and bag a hot milf like Kelly McGillis. As this article suggests, perhaps even more important is movies like these, where the Pentagon trades access to equipment for assistance in plot creation and image, desensitize us to the concept of perpetual war:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sir ... 36574.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Video games of course have the same effect.

[CID1990]

I say we get more effective advertising out of "Red Dawn" and "Top Gun". You didn't have to be a redneck to want to fly a F15, flip off the Russkies, and bag a hot milf like Kelly McGillis. As this article suggests, perhaps even more important is movies like these, where the Pentagon trades access to equipment for assistance in plot creation and image, desensitize us to the concept of perpetual war:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sir ... 36574.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Video games of course have the same effect.

I didn't see any F-15s in Top Gun. Maybe I wasn't paying attention.

[kalm]

I say we get more effective advertising out of "Red Dawn" and "Top Gun". You didn't have to be a redneck to want to fly a F15, flip off the Russkies, and bag a hot milf like Kelly McGillis. As this article suggests, perhaps even more important is movies like these, where the Pentagon trades access to equipment for assistance in plot creation and image, desensitize us to the concept of perpetual war:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sir ... 36574.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Video games of course have the same effect.

I didn't see any F-15s in Top Gun. Maybe I wasn't paying attention.

Yeah, I thought about researching which plane Maverick was flying, but was confident I'd be corrected if necessary.

[Chizzang]

I've said it here a hundred times if I've said it once:

If you want to downsize the military, then first you must downsize the mission. I would be 100% on board with that.

The problem is that we want to cut the military but stay in our position as world police (see: TTBF and others' support of the no-fly zone in Libya). The you wind up with those awful nasty contractors and war profiteers that you liberals are so loathesome about.

We can't have it both ways. If we want to save the children and abused kittens of the world then we need to keep a bloated military. If we cut the military while still playing Global Barney Fife then we have to outsource the mission to Blackwater.

Understand?

Agreed...
You're preaching from my pulpit there brother (can I get an Amen)

However we have most of an entire party on the right and probably a third of the party on the left that confuse being World Police Global Decider with being "a leader" and do not understand that true leadership has virtually nothing to do with how bloated your defense budget is...

We are a global giant on virtually every front - Economic - Technological - Agricultural - and more
We can lead by example on dozens of fronts

Tanks and Battle cruisers and F-22's is very rarely the answer (almost never) in my opinion
We spent 1.1 trillion on all related defense budget expenses in 2010 (FUCK ME..!!!)

If for the last 50 years instead of all that "defense" annually we instead spent a huge percentage on "doing the right thing" and being on "offense" and spent hundreds of billions a year on building schools and had an ARMY of 250,000 teachers we sent out globally... whatever it's a pipe dream

we're an imperialist nation - that's who we are - that's how we roll (ask the Native Americans)

The very subtle concept of Tao
"The softest thing in the universe will always overcome the hardest thing in the universe
That without substance can enter where there is no room
know the value of non-action
Teaching without words and work without doing Are understood by very few"

We can lead through knowledge and wisdom... or deception and carpet bombing - both are self fulfilling

Hippies... DUDE..!!!

[AZGrizFan]

I've said it here a hundred times if I've said it once:

If you want to downsize the military, then first you must downsize the mission. I would be 100% on board with that.

The problem is that we want to cut the military but stay in our position as world police (see: TTBF and others' support of the no-fly zone in Libya). The you wind up with those awful nasty contractors and war profiteers that you liberals are so loathesome about.

We can't have it both ways. If we want to save the children and abused kittens of the world then we need to keep a bloated military. If we cut the military while still playing Global Barney Fife then we have to outsource the mission to Blackwater.

Understand?

(BTW- I say get rid of the NASCAR sponsorship too, but put up more recruiting commercials in their place. Bubba NASCAR Fan does not need the message. He is already pro-military.)

Good post.

Regardless of what size the mission is it can be done with fewer bands. The military is the largest employer of musicians in the nation.

Nor do we need any recruiting commercials, all we need to do is keep the unemployment rate at the right level and we'll have a steady supply of recruits. And as a bonus (at least for those in the non-serving class), we keep civilian wages down.

I think you just outlined Obama's military recruitment strategy.

[AZGrizFan]

I say we get more effective advertising out of "Red Dawn" and "Top Gun". You didn't have to be a redneck to want to fly a F15, flip off the Russkies, and bag a hot milf like Kelly McGillis. As this article suggests, perhaps even more important is movies like these, where the Pentagon trades access to equipment for assistance in plot creation and image, desensitize us to the concept of perpetual war:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sir ... 36574.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Video games of course have the same effect.

I didn't see any F-15s in Top Gun. Maybe I wasn't paying attention.

Don't stop him. He's on a roll.

[kalm]

I didn't see any F-15s in Top Gun. Maybe I wasn't paying attention.

Don't stop him. He's on a roll.

Precisely.