Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Veterans

Aristus

(68,789 posts)

3. I agree. I lot of pearl-clutching from people we don't normally consider pearl-clutchers.

Reply to Drale (Reply #2)

Thu Sep 26, 2013, 10:11 AM

Sep 2013

"Can't afford" almost certainly means: "Unable to fight a World War II-level conflict" with the typical American approach, which includes massive, wasteful, overwhelming firepower, ridiculous and expensive amenities like Burger King on every forward cantonment and firebase, 12 different patterns of camouflage uniforms, etc.

For all the screeching about inept overspending by the government, the vast majority of it is confined to our bloated, unwieldy military machine.

And for any "more-patriotic-than-thou" screechers out there, I'm a Gulf War vet and former M1A1 Abrams tank crewman, so save it...

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why The Army Wants To Ban Tattoos [View all] unhappycamper Sep 2013 OP

Interesting gopiscrap Sep 2013 #1

"Military can’t afford all the people it has, let alone the ships, planes, and main battle tanks" Drale Sep 2013 #2

I agree. I lot of pearl-clutching from people we don't normally consider pearl-clutchers. Aristus Sep 2013 #3

We can't fight a WW2-level conflict anyway JustABozoOnThisBus Sep 2013 #5

OT but "...the US will not have to firepower to defeat a single major enemy, truebluegreen Sep 2013 #4