Tight budget may force Pentagon to cut forces: general

Comments (44)
Adam_Smith wrote:

For defense cuts to make sense they need to be coupled with a less interventionist foreign policy. We must learn to make better use of “soft power”.

Feb 09, 2013 10:05am EST  --  Report as abuse
go2goal wrote:

Whatever we do….let’s hope the idiots in Congress don’t ever-ever think about cutting the expensive and unneeded military systems and hardware…..like the $ 60 B they want to waste on building more Abrams tanks which the Army itself says they don’t need.

Whatever we do….let’s hope the idiots in Congress don’t ever-ever cut the unnecessary and obsolete naval ships……billion dollar sitting ducks to shoulder fired missiles ($ 10 K weapon). The idiots in the Senate like Suzie Collins from Maine who know nothing about military strategy and today’s needs. Collins…..the perfect example of Senators how waste billions of dollars in tax payer money….in the military area where she is both ignorant and naive.

Feb 09, 2013 10:07am EST  --  Report as abuse
byrontx wrote:

The brass keeps trying to deflect revenue cuts to personnel instead of weapons programs. Cutting wasteful weapons programs might close the revolving door they have with military contractors.

Feb 09, 2013 10:12am EST  --  Report as abuse
pavoter1946 wrote:

If the cuts block another $1 Billion wasted on a computer system that doesn’t work, that will be good. But they won’t. Instead, slashing will be done in a way that will increase costs down the road. Especially as each lobbyist works to keep their contract for things the Pentagon never wanted, but Congress decided to buy.

Purchasing for toys for wars that will never be fought against enemies that will never exist will continue.

But it may force diplomacy to be used more then force, and that will be a positive. And it might force other allies to pick up the slack,instead of letting the US do everything while they invest in their own country.

Feb 09, 2013 10:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
Harry079 wrote:

The economy is doing so well with $85 billion a month of Fed monopoly money supporting the near record high equity markets and record low interest rates that destroyed the nest eggs of millions of retirees.

Now all of a sudden a bill passed by Congress and signed by the President is being hailed as some sort of bad joke that now we can’t afford to have mail 6 days a week or refuel the Nuclear Carrier Abraham Lincoln.

It will be interesting to see how they will attempt to kick the can up against a brick wall.

It looks as if the cowardly acts of Continuing Resolutions just might becoming to a tragic end.

One days worth of 2012′s overspending would refit and refuel the Abraham Lincoln for 25 years.

Feb 09, 2013 10:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
ErnieLang wrote:

Let’s change the title of this piece from:

“Tight budget may force Pentagon to cut forces: general”

To: “Tight budget provides Pentagon golden opportunity to cut generals!”

Feb 09, 2013 10:55am EST  --  Report as abuse
wrote:

Here’s a novel idea from a 100% service connected DAV: Issue V.A. Eligible Disabled Veterans with their own personal , top notch, medical insurance cards that guarantees them access to any and all private medical facilities, dentists and pharmacies. On a par with Congress and state politicians gravy medical coverage plans. Then the Veterans Affairs Dept, which is only second to DoD., can trim its current $143 billion budget by, say, 60%! Cut its 345,000 ” work” force by same. REALITY: It will never happen because, as DAV’ s know, VA is not for the veterans as much as it is for the politicians and their VA employee constituents!

Feb 09, 2013 11:09am EST  --  Report as abuse
sjfella wrote:

The war machine will cut expenses? Don’t hold your breath.

Feb 09, 2013 11:22am EST  --  Report as abuse
bocomojoe wrote:

That’s right General. No way are you going to cut billions in perks for high ranking officers, like your huge personal entourage, personal chefs, personal jets, golf courses and 5-star accommodations. Also no way will they cut the growing bevy of unnecessary generals who have nothing to do but lobby congress for more money to keep their gravy train rolling. Or the billions in needless and failed projects that line the pockets of a handful of war profiteers. No, our soldiers, the ones that die in the trenches and come home missing their legs and saddles with PTSD, they are the ones that will feel the pinch from the military cuts. We have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined. Maybe we could do with a few less and still be safe here at home. Oh year, maybe we don’t need to act like we own the world and have to spend trillions proving it. How about spending trillions fixing our problems here at home instead, and defending our own borders.

Feb 09, 2013 11:30am EST  --  Report as abuse
Doc62 wrote:

We spend way too much on unneccesary high priced toys. The military manufacturing LOBBY wants to spend MORE. Normally the GOP is pro hawk on military spending. Now their cry is for austerity. Our president has kept us our of 4 wars and out of Afganistan in a yr. Good Work!
We should dump the VA Healthcare system. Instead, pay regular hospitals to care for veterans. The VAMC is a wasteful juggenaut. As usual, the civilian side is more efficient.

Feb 09, 2013 11:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
Think_Twice wrote:

One of the major component of defense readiness is training. Everyone gets excited about equipment, and justifiably so, but the critical thinking and technical skills of the men and women who are decision makers and operators of that equipment depends on training with practical exercises. It is my understanding that the Army will cut training by 78%. That means whatever the manpower and equipment losses, those remaining soldiers will have less readiness training to deal with the changing climate and the ever demanding mandate from the bean counters to do more with less. As Dempsey said, our Armed Forces will be forced to less with less. It seems to me that we have come to competing agencies demanding funds: Homeland Security vice Defense. I always thought that Defense IS Homeland Security. Bad me.

Feb 09, 2013 11:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
morbas wrote:

Military Secrets are the mose fleeting of all. Investment in military is a big oxymoron. Unless the money is routed through the lower 4/5th quintile in the form of income, then consumption will not carry the day; 1920′s all over again when fortunes were based on paper notes, not production. You can turn the engine over and over, unless there is fuel and spark, the battery will just run down.

-START: Copy and post to your representatives.-

Constituent Mandate,
Poverty/subsistence margin flat rate of taxation is fairness. The upper quintile views fair as the more you make the more you take home. This meets both criteria. The Washington bureaucrats missed a fiscal cliff opportunity to propose a margin flat rate tax that balances the budget. Rates $0-20K 0%, money above $20K 35%; couples freely share; all income bundled and taxed in summation form, no exemptions. And provide business relief with no business taxation with provisions on ‘partnership and disregarded’ businesses to transfer funds into personal accounts as the taxable income. Ends family business inheritance taxation, except when sold for personal profit (always taxable). The fiscal cliff resolution applies a higher 39.6% rate accommodating a 20% capital gains rate, and does not balance the budget. This poverty/subsistence margin flat tax balances the budget eliminating all other taxes (payroll, gasoline, whatever…) with a lower 35% flat tax rate. It is net income progressive at a lower rate than the federal income single standard deduction form.

-End Copy and post to your representatives.-

This proposal would require a National Level of politics that reaches amendment level approval. This would require a national constituency letter writing outcry, that which has not been seen.

While it is a truism, democracy has inherently the most expensive military per bang than any other form of government, we need to pull the reins in. The economy supports the military, we need to address that issue to avoid a meteoric ride to the ground. We need a fair and balanced revenue system.

Feb 09, 2013 12:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bill1212 wrote:

STOP Giving away money, Fighter Jets and Tanks to other countries! Then round up every illegal immigrant and send their butts home!! The military is already to thin.

Makes a lot of sense lets throw another 200,000 – 300,000 people in the unemployment line and force them to file bankruptcy!!!

Feb 09, 2013 12:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SanPa wrote:

Wrong target … cut waste rather than troops. How about the $1/4 trillion Bush boondoggle that goes by thee label F-35. Cut the order and spare us the deficit.

Feb 09, 2013 12:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
elfenstar wrote:

Just whining to make us all feel sooooooo bad. I don’t. if there is one place to cut, this is it.

Feb 09, 2013 1:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Pterosaur wrote:

@Adam_Smith,

You are right, but not to the end of it. For the “soft power” to work, the US foreign policy has to be consistent and especially does not consist of double-standard, that is, it has to stick with some universal human values, instead of the load of BS and non-sense “freedom” propaganda.

Feb 09, 2013 1:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
kehenalife wrote:

IF YOU HAVE TO CUT “FORCES” START WITH THE BLOATED GENERAL STAFFS AND THOSE CHICKEN LITTLE “THE SKY IS FALLING” WHINING GENERALS!

Feb 09, 2013 1:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MikeBarnett wrote:

The US is ending its involvement in Afghanistan, so it can afford reductions in the military. Increased use of drones in more countries raises legal questions for US actions, but it reduces costs compared to ground operations. The problems will be the bases, base security, and logistical support.

In addition, the US will continue to destroy US computers, digital cameras, cell phones, and fertilizer, the basic components of smart munitions. The US will continue to burn billions of gallons of US diesel fuel, gasoline, and aviation fuel. The US will continue to waste billions of US man hours in unproductive work.

Secondary losses will be in US trade. Countries do not like US drone strikes or interventions. In Libya, the US limited itself to missiles and support for NATO airstrikes. The African Union and China condemned the exceeding of the UN resolution on Libya. The US and NATO ignored the complaint. US trade with Africa declined while China’s trade with Africa increased by double digits.

Feb 09, 2013 2:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Perv889966 wrote:

“Tight budget may force Pentagon to cut forces: general”

Yeah, well, that’s why they’re called cutbacks.

Feb 09, 2013 3:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Lots of armchair quarterbacks posting here that never served their country a day in their life. But, like the president, they know better than everyone else.

Feb 09, 2013 3:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
morbas wrote:

Volunteer 1969

Feb 09, 2013 4:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DeeToo wrote:

Long overdue. Half the taxes we pay go to the military – and we haven’t even begun to pay for two wars started 10 years ago. The military should not remain at full staff during times when we are not at war.

No other nation in the owrd spens 1/5th of what we do – it is bankrupting this country while our roads and bridges collapse. Bring the troops home – have them rebuild infrastructure and monitor the border.

The military is a necessity – but needs to be minimal when we do not have a adeclared war. The we must fund it, or keep it at funded levels.

Feb 09, 2013 4:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
wordmerchant wrote:

Cry me a river. Holding our service men and women hostage to budget negotiations is the height of cynical manipulation. The Pentagon and its involvement with our military-industrial complex has only one real mission: self preservation, not defense of our country. Besides the incredible waste they are protecting in cost overuns, unneeded and unusable weapon and support systems, and a bloated bureacracy, there remains the ultimate issue: the more money you give the Pentagon, the more they have to have an excuse to use it. Thus the chicken hawks and the industry lobbies push us into perpetual warfare. Whatever your politics, read Rachael Maddow’s book on this, and try to refute her argument. So I say, call the Pentagon’s bluff. Let them cut the size of our armed forces, and then deal with the fallout.

Feb 09, 2013 5:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse

I didn’t say all.

Feb 09, 2013 5:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Seabee267 wrote:

Try this, offer foreign countries that we have military bases in the option of fully funding our military forces in thier country. Our troops provide for their defense so let them pay for it, otherwise recall all our troops and their equipment stateside and close the foreign base. Redeploy the troops to defend our borders,redeply the Navy to patrol our coastlines stepback from providing a military presence to so many countries worldwide. I would think this would improve the budget and quite possibly our national image.

Feb 09, 2013 5:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Seabee267 wrote:

Try this, offer foreign countries that we have military bases in the option of fully funding our military forces in thier country. Our troops provide for their defense so let them pay for it, otherwise recall all our troops and their equipment stateside and close the foreign base. Redeploy the troops to defend our borders,redeply the Navy to patrol our coastlines stepback from providing a military presence to so many countries worldwide. I would think this would improve the budget and quite possibly our national image.

Feb 09, 2013 5:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Mott wrote:

It need not have to be force reduction.

With 100′s of billions of spend in supply-chain procurement, re-assess the supply-portfolio to keep the essentials and shouldn’t that hard to free up more than to cover the coming cuts.

Feb 09, 2013 5:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bobw7s6 wrote:

The military budget is almost 3 times the size it was just 10 years ago, now the military is crying that 470 billion over 10 years which is 47 billion per year is going to hurt the military. The military budget can be slashed by a third with no problem, they’re just used to getting whatever they want whenever they want no matter how much it cost for the last 10 years. The military budget needs to be slashed by at least a minimum of 200 billion per year. That would still leave a lot of waste in the military.

Feb 09, 2013 5:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Pterosaur wrote:

@bobw7s6,

Even with that amount of humongous money, I bet the US military do not dare to confront Russia or China, not because the US military do not have the guts, but real wars are unimaginable to the whole human kind. So our tax money is paying them only for the photo posting, paying smaller countries to buy their support or alliance(for convenience), or at best bullying some small countries around the World.

Feb 09, 2013 6:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JimRome wrote:

Tightened budget? HAHAHAHAH! $650 BILLION we spent on defense last year. In times of peace or reduced conflict, the budget should be $36.73! All other US corporations expand and contract, why can’t the defense department? Because they’re weak, and they’re corrupt.

Feb 09, 2013 6:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JimRome wrote:

Last year we spent $650 BILLION on defense, while the Halliburton CEO made 28 million in salary. Meanwhile, some of our troops can’t get the meds they need for PTSD? P A T H E T I C ! Cut the armaments budget, and take care of our troops!

Feb 09, 2013 6:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
joe10082 wrote:

If the shrinking budget cuts bring more soldiers home and out of harms way let the budget cuts continue without let up! America needs a break from wars of liberation and all wars in general.

Feb 09, 2013 6:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JimRome wrote:

The military is not a permanently large force. It should expand and contract as needed.

Feb 09, 2013 6:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bluepanther wrote:

Boo hoo hoo. The armed services were like hogs with their snouts in the trough during the Bush years and during the first Obama administration. Too many bases, too many weapons systems, and too much fat. Besides, aren’t we out of Iraq and leaving Afghanistan? Do we want to find another war “to keep spending up?” Time to start trimming like everyone has been doing the last couple of years.

Feb 09, 2013 6:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bluepanther wrote:

Boo hoo hoo. The armed services were like hogs with their snouts in the trough during the Bush years and during the first Obama administration. Too many bases, too many weapons systems, and too much fat. Besides, aren’t we out of Iraq and leaving Afghanistan? Do we want to find another war “to keep spending up?” Time to start trimming like everyone has been doing the last couple of years.

Feb 09, 2013 6:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bluepanther wrote:

And its time for a very wealthy Germany and South Korea and those duplicitous “allies” in the Middle East to start paying full freight for U.S. military bases if they want them.

Feb 09, 2013 7:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
timebandit wrote:

Sixty years of a non-stop warrior nation is enough. American taxpayers fund more than 1,000 U.S. military bases around the world, so many that even the Pentagon has admitted it doesn’t really know exactly how many. The Pentagon sucks up nearly 70% of the federal budget, once all military spending is factored in, including endless lifetime VA benefits and the debt to finance all that, with the billion dollar toys … and out of control trillion dollar arms manufacturing-independent contracting industry. The U.S. has not been involved in one single “good” war since WWII. The U.S. played a large role in creating the Cold War by giving much of eastern Europe to Stalin at Yalta.

Feb 09, 2013 8:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Cyberblunt wrote:

Don’t shrink our mighty navy is all I can say.

Feb 09, 2013 9:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Turf12 wrote:

Cut the TSA, the military can have some of that money.

Feb 09, 2013 10:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
McBob08 wrote:

Cut it! Cut it down; pare away the excess troops that make it possible for the Warhawks to convince Congress and the President that invasions are possible. Get the US Military down to what it’s supposed to be, constitutionally — a defensive force, not an offensive one. Make over 80% of the military reserves, and keep just a relative handful of full time officers. Then watch the Debt and Deficit vanish in no time, and the world start seeing America in a better light (and stop calling it “The Great Satan”; that title is well earned, considering all the immoral crap America has done all over the world)

Feb 09, 2013 10:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DeanMJackson wrote:

Chinese troops will land in Mexico at the end of the decade to “assist” Mexico in internationalizing the fake “drug wars” there, where by the end of the decade the “drug wars” violence will have spread throughout Mexico. The Chinese landings will take place after the fraudulent collapse of the Chinese Communist government, the “collapse” being a major disinformation operation under the “Long-Range Policy” (LRP), the “new” more subtle strategy all Communist nations signed onto in 1960 to defeat the West with (the last major disinformation operation under the LRP was the “collapse” of the USSR in 1991).

Now you know why there were so many false flag assault rifle massacres within the United States in 2012; it would be unfeasible for the Chinese to mount an invasion of the United States with so many privately owned assault rifles in the hands of Americans:

If the collapse of the USSR had been legitimate, the following obligatory actions would have taken place, as they always take place after political revolutions:

(1) Immediately after the “collapse” of the USSR high-ranking present and “former” Communist Party members within the various Federal government civilian/military/intelligence branches of the post Soviet republics were never arrested in the interests of national security:

Since there was no conquest that liberated the USSR, it would have been up to the people themselves to conduct the arrests to ensure the continuity of the freed state.

(2) Lower level Communist Party members within the 15 governments of the post USSR would have been immediately fired in the interests of national security:

The hated low-ranking CPSU members at all levels of government, who for 74 years persecuted the 90% of the population who were non-Communist, would have been fired from government positions, especially education. The freed Soviet public would then have requested assistance from the West to ensure critical services remained on-line until enough qualified freed Soviets could fill those positions.

(3) the Russian electorate these last 21 years have inexplicably only been electing for President and Prime Minister Soviet era Communist Party Quislings:*

Presidents of Russia since 1991:

Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin – July 10, 1991 – December 31, 1999 – Communist.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin – 31 December 1999 – 7 May 2000 (Acting) and May 7, 2000 – May 7, 2008 – Communist.

Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev – May 7, 2008 – May 7, 2012, during his studies at the University he joined the Communist Party.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin – May 7, 2012 – Present, Communist:

Yeltsin and Putin would have been arrested in the interests of national security, while Medvedev would have been shunned by the newly freed Russians.

Imagine it’s 1784 America. The Treaty of Paris (1783) was signed the previous year ending the revolutionary war with Britain. So who do the electorates of the newly independent 13 colonies elect for their respective governors? They elect persons who were Loyalists (American supporters of Great Britain) during the war for independence! Of course, in reality the persecution was so bad for Loyalists in post independence America that they had to flee the country en masse for Canada.

Or try this one out: After the collapse of the South African Apartheid Regime in 1994, the majority block population reelect for their Presidents only persons who were National Party members before the 1994 elections!

(4) there was no de-Communization program initiated after the “collapse” of the USSR to ferret out Soviet era Communist agents still in power:

The fact that there were no Allies in the freed USSR to carry out a de-Communization program, meant the freed Soviets would not only have had to take up that program themselves but ensure, unlike the German de-Nazification example in post war Germany, its effectiveness since:

(a) there was no occupation force to ensure the Communists weren’t still in power or could mount a violent comeback; and.

(b) unlike the Nazis that persecuted minorities in Germany, and were not generally hated by the dominant society, in the USSR Communists were the hated minority who persecuted the majority.

(5) not one “crime against humanity” indictment of the thousands of criminals still alive who committed crimes on Soviet territory:

Even post Nazi Germany (West and East) convicted and imprisoned Nazi war criminals.

(6) the refusal of the Russian Navy to remove the hated Communist Red Star from the bows of vessels, and the refusal of the Russian Air Force to remove the Communist Red Star from the wings of Russian military aircraft, not to mention placing the hated Communist Red Star on all new Naval vessels and military aircraft:

To the ordinary Russian, the Communist Red Star was the symbol for the hated Communist regime that for 74 years persecuted the 90% of the nation who were non-Communist; and.

(7) Soviet era Communist agents still control Russian Orthodox Church (and all other religious institutions within the 15 republics that made up the USSR, including religious institutions in the East Bloc):

If the collapse of the USSR had been legitimate, Communist Quislings within all religious institutions would have been immediately identified and thrown out of those religious institutions.

(8) Lenin’s tomb still exists in Red Square:

Just as the people of Germany tore apart the Berlin Wall in 1989, so too the Russian people would have destroyed Lenin’s tomb on December 25, 1991. The 74-year persecution of the 90% non-Communist Russian population would have seen Lenin’s tomb destroyed.
———————————
*Presidents of “former” USSR Republics and their political affiliation before the “collapse” of the USSR:

Armenia:

Levon Ter-Petrossian – October 16, 1991 – February 3, 1998, Communist.

Robert Kocharyan – February 4, 1998 – April 9, 2008, Communist.

Serzh Azati Sargsyan – April 9, 2008 – Present, Communist.

Azerbaijan:

Ayaz Niyazi oğlu Mütallibov – October 30, 1991 – March 6, 1992, Communist.

Abulfez Elchibey – June 16, 1992 – September 1, 1993, not Communist.

Heydar Alirza oglu Aliyev – June 24, 1993 – October 31, 2003, Communist.

Ilham Heydar oglu Aliyev (Son of third President) – October 31, 2003 – Present, Communist.

Belarus:

Alexander Grigoryevich Lukashenko – July 20, 1994 – Present, Communist.

Estonia:

Lennart Georg Meri – October 6, 1992 – October 8, 2001. During the campaign, the nationalist right tried to bring up questions about Meri’s alleged former links with the KGB. However, these allegations did not harm Meri’s reputation and public image. Why not?

Arnold Rüütel – October 8, 2001 – October 9, 2006, Communist.

Toomas Hendrik Ilves – October 9, 2006 – Present. not Communist.

Georgia:

Zviad Gamsakhurdia – April 14, 1991 – January 6, 1992, not Communist (dissident).

Eduard Shevardnadze – November 26, 1995 – November 23, 2003, 1948, Communist.

Nino Burjanadze – November 23, 2003 – January 25, 2004, Communist.

Mikheil Saakashvili – 25 January 2004 – 25 November 2007, Communist.

Nino Burjanadze – November 25, 2007 – January 20, 2008 (Acting), Communist.

Mikheil Saakashvili – January 20, 2008 – Present, Communist.

Kazakhstan:

Nursultan Abishuly Nazarbayev – April 24, 1990 – Present, Communist.

Kyrgyzstan:

Askar Akayevich Akayev – October 27, 1990 – March 24, 2005, Communist.

Ishenbai Duyshonbiyevich Kadyrbekov – March 24, 2005 – March 25, 2005 (Interim), Communist.

Kurmanbek Saliyevich Bakiyev – March 25, 2005 – April 15, 2010, Communist.

Roza Isakovna Otunbayeva – April 7, 2010 – December 1, 2011 Communist.

Almazbek Sharshenovich Atambayev – December 1, 2011 – Present, Communist.

Latvia:

Guntis Ulmanis – July 7, 1993 – July 7, 1999, Communist, 1965.

Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga – July 8, 1999 – July 8, 2007, lived in Canada from 1954 until 1998 when she returned to Latvia where she was born, upon which in 1999 she was elected president.

Valdis Zatlers – July 8, 2007 – July 8, 2011, used his studies to avoid joining Communist Party.

Andris Bērziņš – July 8, 2011 (Elect), Communist.

Lithuania:

Vytautas Landsbergis – March 11, 1990 –November 25, 1992, not Communist.

Algirdas Mykolas Brazauskas – February 25, 1993 – February 25, 1998, Communist.

Valdas Adamkus – February 26, 1998 – February 26, 2003, not Communist.

Rolandas Paksas – February 26, 2003 – April 6, 2004, Communist.

Valdas Adamkus – July 12, 2004 – July 12, 2009, not Communist.

Dalia Grybauskaitė – July 12, 2009 – Present, Communist, 1983.

Moldova:

Mircea Ion Snegur – September 3, 1990 – January 15, 1997, Communist.

Petru Chiril Lucinschi – January 15, 1997 – April 7, 2001, Communist.

Vladimir Nicolaevici Voronin – April 7 2001 – September 11, 2009, Communist.

Mihai Ghimpu – September 11, 2009 – December 28, 2010 (Acting), not Communist.

Vlad Filat – December 28, 2010 – 30 December 2010 (Acting), not Communist.

Marian Lupu – December 30, 2010 – Present (Acting), Communist. 1988.

Russia:

Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin – July 10, 1991 – December 31, 1999 – Communist.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin – 31 December 1999 – 7 May 2000 (Acting) and May 7, 2000 – May 7, 2008 – Communist.

Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev – May 7, 2008 – May 7, 2012, during his studies at the University he joined the Communist Party.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin – May 7, 2012 – Present, Communist.

Tajikistan:

Emomalii Rahmon – November 20, 1992 – Present, Communist.

Turkmenistan:

Saparmurat Atayevich Niyazov – November 2, 1990 – December 21, 2006, Communist.

Gurbanguly Mälikgulyýewiç Berdimuhamedow – December 21, 2006 – Present, Unknown.

Ukraine:

Leonid Makarovych Kravchuk, December 5, 1991 – July 19, 1994, joined Ukraine Communist Party in 1958.

Leonid Danylovych Kuchma, July 19, 1994 – January 23, 2005, Communist, 1960.

Viktor Andriyovych Yushchenko, January 23, 2005 – February 25, 2010, Communist, 1980.

Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych, February 25, 2010 – Present, Communist, 1980.

Uzbekistan:

Islam Abdug‘aniyevich Karimov – March 24, 1990 – Present, Communist.

Percentage of Soviet era Communist Party Quislings “elected” President to “post” USSR republics (51/39) = 76.47%.

Imagine it’s 1784 America. The Treaty of Paris (1783) was signed the previous year ending the revolutionary war with Britain. So who do the electorates of the newly independent 13 colonies elect for their respective governors? They elect persons who were Loyalists (American supporters of Great Britain) during the war for independence! Of course, in reality the persecution was so bad for Loyalists in post independence America that they had to flee the country en masse for Canada.

Or try this one out: After the collapse of the South African Apartheid Regime in 1994, the majority black population reelect for their Presidents only persons who were National Party members before the 1994 elections!

In order to understand the World Communist threat to our liberties, one must understand Communist strategy:

“Lenin advised the Communists that they must be prepared to “resort to all sorts of stratagems, maneuvers, illegal methods, evasions and subterfuge” to achieve their objectives. This advice was given on the eve of his reintroduction of limited capitalism in Russia, in his work Left Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder.

… Another speech of Lenin’s … in July 1921 is again highly relevant to understanding “perestroika.” “Our only strategy at present,” wrote Lenin, “is to become stronger and, therefore, wiser, more reasonable, more opportunistic. The more opportunistic, the sooner will you again assemble the masses round you. When we have won over the masses by our reasonable approach, we shall then apply offensive tactics in the strictest sense of the word.”

If you examine the backgrounds of prominent Russian figures, you will find that they have long Communist Party/ KGB or Komsomol pedigrees. Yet for some inexplicable reason, the Western media have accepted their sudden, orchestrated, mass “conversion” to Western-style norms of behavior, their endless talk of “democracy,” and their acceptance of “capitalism,” as genuine. “Scratch these new, instant Soviet “democrats,” “anti-Communists,” and “nationalists” who have sprouted out of nowhere, and underneath will be found secret Party members or KGB agents,” Golitsyn writes on page 123 of his new book [The Perestroika Deception]. In accepting at face value the “transformation” of these Leninist revolutionary Communists into “instant democrats,” the West automatically accepts as genuine the false “Break with the Past” — the single lie upon which the entire deception is based.

In short, the “former” Soviet Union — and the East European countries as well — are all run by people who are steeped in the dialectical modus operandi of Lenin. Without exception, they are all active Leninist revolutionaries, working collectively towards the establishment of a world Communist government, which, by definition, will be a world dictatorship.

It is difficult for the West to understand the Leninist Hegelian dialectical method — the creation of competing or successive opposites in order to achieve an intended outcome. Equally difficult for us to comprehend is the fact that these Leninist revolutionaries plan their strategies over decades and generations. This extraordinary behavior is naturally alien to Western politicians, who can see no further than the next election. Western politicians usually react to events. Leninist revolutionaries create events, in order to control reactions to them and manipulate their outcomes.” — William F Jasper, Senior Editor for The New American magazine.

You ask, what does Jasper mean when he says, “Leninist Hegelian dialectical method — the creation of competing or successive opposites in order to achieve an intended outcome”?

Simply explained, and on a tactical level, it’s called the “Scissors Strategy”, where one blade represents (for example) Putin & Company, however the other blade of the scissors–the leadership of the political “opposition” to Putin & Company–is actually controlled by Putin & Company*, which leaves the genuine opposition in the middle wondering why political change isn’t taking place. Understand this simple strategy?

On a strategic level, from 1960 – 1989 the USSR and China played the “Scissors Strategy”, by pretending to be enemies. This strategy allowed one side to play off against the other with the West, thereby gaining political advantages from the West, which neither Communist giant could have achieved if it was believed they were united. Clever, huh?

Feb 10, 2013 12:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
Acetracy wrote:

This is such a typical ploy of the Military to keep its $trillion budget intact: cut back on military personnel.

Of course they never offer to stop some of the outrageous, over budget projects like new air craft carriers, jet fighters, helicopters, tanks, let alone all the money going to private contractors, most of whom had worked earlier for the Defense Department.

My hope is that the automatic spending cuts do go through. It would be the first time in decades that the US has substantially reduced its military spending.

Talk about an entitlement that the US can’t afford.

Feb 10, 2013 12:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DeanMJackson wrote:

Acetracy says, “Of course they never offer to stop some of the outrageous, over budget projects like new air craft carriers, jet fighters, helicopters, tanks…”

Since the “collapse” of the USSR was a strategic ruse (as will be the upcoming fraudulent “collapse” of the Chinese Communist government), why would you wish the United States to disarm? Are you merely ignorant, or are you nefarious in your suggestions?

Feb 10, 2013 9:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
rmkraussr wrote:

I’m no dummy . . . but the situation as described by Reuters is as clear as mud.

Feb 12, 2013 6:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.