Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Maine takes big hit (Base closures)
Portland Press Herald ^ | May 14, 2005 | BART JANSEN

Posted on 05/14/2005 10:10:44 AM PDT by Fido969

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last
To: Fido969

I heard Frank Gaffney on Monica Crowley's WABC radio program(he is a regular)and he said that while he agreed in past years that some of the "fat"needed to be trimmed from the military,he saw this latest series of base closures as"cutting into the bone"!He KNOWS of what he speaks!!The irony concerning Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is that only a few days ago,they received a"WELL DONE"commendation from The United States Navy for performing their duties so well!!!


21 posted on 05/14/2005 10:50:57 AM PDT by bandleader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fido969

I am not a big supporter of government welfare by military base. If a base is not needed, close it. There is no reason why the government should keep a military base open just because it helps the local economy. I'm sure a submarine base in Montana would help the local economy as well, but it makes no sense! Nor do big military bases in the New England area when the biggest threats are NK, Iran, and China.


22 posted on 05/14/2005 10:59:13 AM PDT by burzum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Fido969

The reason it is difficult to get spending under control is that too many politicains are protecting their turf and bringing home the bacon. Why? Do they really care about what is best for the country? No! They care only about the votes necessary to keep themselves in office.

This is not true of all politicians but they are probably the majority. That is why they formed a commission and that is why the military decided what they really needed. This is a pro military administration and probably the best group ever to make such decisions. They are streamlining the operations to get the most with the least.

The Democrats simply cut back the manpower and the weapons and they do it under the guise of streamling government. Gore bragged about how many government workers he eliminated but didn't say almost all of them were military personal.

Many of these cuts will be negated by the selfish politicians so we will still be spending more than necessary for defense and the Democrats will still try to cut defense in meaningful places.


23 posted on 05/14/2005 11:05:44 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not everything that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bandleader

It is not like the capability of Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is going away. It is being transferred to the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, WA. There is room for expansion at PSNS and the realignment of forces requires it. The Navy will still be able to accomplish its missions (and I think it will be able to do them better).


24 posted on 05/14/2005 11:06:13 AM PDT by burzum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Fido969

Snowe and Collins used to be reasonably helpful RINOs, but they've been no help to the party at all in recent years. If you want pork you have to play ball.


25 posted on 05/14/2005 11:08:17 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Olympia Snowe is all the time voting against America, so why not simply push Maine outside the US defense perimeter

And how about Connecticut, where Joe Lieberman was one of only 3 Democrats in the Senate who voted for every single terror and war bill Bush requested? They are #1 on the list for job cuts, including the freakin nuke sub base at Groton! How does that figure in your perverse political basis for national security decisions?

Meanwhile all Brother Jeb's state will lose is a single ACCOUNTING office with 10 people. National defense spending based on politics is un-American.

26 posted on 05/14/2005 11:11:32 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Ring, ring

Senator Snowe - President Bush is on the line. He mentioned that he heard you speech about the base closures. He wants to talk about your vote on...


27 posted on 05/14/2005 11:13:28 AM PDT by frithguild (Defining hypocrisy - Liberals fear liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bandleader
I heard Frank Gaffney on Monica Crowley's WABC radio program(he is a regular)and he said that while he agreed in past years that some of the "fat"needed to be trimmed from the military,he saw this latest series of base closures as"cutting into the bone"!He KNOWS of what he speaks

I heard him too. Very disturbing. This Administration does not deserve the benefit of any doubt anymore since the "vigilante" comment. If Bush will not defend our borders for the sake of politics, I will question thoroughly whether he is basing defense decision on politics as well.

28 posted on 05/14/2005 11:17:44 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: burzum
I am not a big supporter of government welfare by military base. If a base is not needed, close it. There is no reason why the government should keep a military base open just because it helps the local economy. I'm sure a submarine base in Montana would help the local economy as well, but it makes no sense! Nor do big military bases in the New England area when the biggest threats are NK, Iran, and China.

I agree with you. I work at one of the bases in the Northeast that was put on the closure list yesterday (Fort Monmouth, NJ). Most of the jobs there are going to either Columbus, Ohio or Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland. A handful of jobs are transferring to Fort Meade and Fort Belvior. (I'm not sure yet where my job is going). The local news was filled with interviews of people who owned nearby diners and restaurants, and the effect the closing will have on them. The purpose of the Department of Defense is to defend the nation. It's not there to serve as a jobs program to prop up the local economy, or support the restaurant industry.

29 posted on 05/14/2005 11:18:22 AM PDT by GreenHornet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: burzum
Correct. All the defense establishments in Maine, and most of the North East for that matter, were geared towards dealing with a Soviet threat against the continental US and Europe. Loring and Plattsburg (NY) were important because of their short flying distance to the USSR. Submarines are still important to the US military forces but not in the number that was needed to oppose the Soviet Union. Less submarines, fewer bases. P3's would be important flying out of Maine if there was a threat of Soviet subs coming out of the North Atlantic. The Soviet subs aren't there anymore so there is no longer a need for P-3's to fly out of Maine. That's why they're going to Florida. That threat no longer exists so the need for the bases no longer exists.
30 posted on 05/14/2005 11:21:15 AM PDT by ops33 (Retired USAF Senior Master Sergeant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: montag813
We need fewer subs these days. It's simple arithmetic in the case of Connecticut ~ still, there's Senator Dodd.

He's no friend of the USA FUR SHUR.

31 posted on 05/14/2005 11:29:41 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: montag813

>>National defense spending based on politics is un-American.

National defense spending based on fiscal prudence (i.e. combining duplicated functions in lower-cost of doing business areas) is conservative and very American.


32 posted on 05/14/2005 11:30:55 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (Official Ruling Class Oligarch Oppressor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ProudVet77

Maybe snowe and collins should look at their voting record in the Senate.


33 posted on 05/14/2005 11:33:19 AM PDT by jocko12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GreenHornet
We are getting 12,000 more jobs over at nearby Fort Belvoir. Should kick the price of my house up $50,000 or so ~ still, most of those jobs are being transferred from buildings in Arlington, Virginia (Rep. Moran D.) to Springfield, Virginia (Rep. Davis R.) because the buildings housing those folks are not up to the security standards now demanded by DOD.

Add to that the fact that the landlord has no intention of bringing them up to standard, and there was no choice.

IRS relocated out of the same development several years ago and moved to Maryland because Bill Clinton needed to pay off Democratic politicians there. That's how many of the DOD folks ended up in those insecure facilities where they are currently at risk of terrorist attack.

A good case can be made for moving the military and various sensitive government agencies out of congested urban areas all over the country. A good case can also be made for avoiding consolidation.

34 posted on 05/14/2005 11:37:04 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
Consolidation and elimination of redundancy in national defense assets is probably not a wise idea in the nuclear age.

Breaking defense agencies into smaller self-contained units and distributing them widely across the Continental landmass is probably the best course ~ it reduces the target profile substantially.

Consequently don't believe everything you're being told about what's really happening.

35 posted on 05/14/2005 11:39:28 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
I don't think we need less subs. I think we just need to position them more wisely. Submarines are not a fast response unit. If a submarine is in port, it provides no defensive or offensive capability. When a submarine is at sea, it rules the sea. A submarine's purpose is not to respond to events quickly, but to be deployed ready for the events when they happen. It does not matter if your submarine initially left the home port of Groton, Connecticut or Norfolk, Virginia; the submarine's patrolling location is what is important. And even if a submarine had to respond to an event, it's not like it is an F-16 where it can be ready in 15 minutes. Moving the submarines from Groton to Norfolk and Kings Bay does not affect our defensive perimeter. They will still be on patrol in the locations where they are needed
36 posted on 05/14/2005 11:46:08 AM PDT by burzum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Fido969

It certainly hurts this Blue State and their RAT and RINO reps. But what about CA, OR, WA? They need some sort of cleansing too.


37 posted on 05/14/2005 11:47:36 AM PDT by Paulus Invictus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GreenHornet

Exactly there is a limited budget even if it seems astronomical, so the dollars have to be spent efficiently.

One thing I heard a few days ago, was I was reading a thread here about the B1 bomber, they were saying it could attack 75 targets in one flight! So we need far less planes then we used to. But we need the plane units we do have, to be ultra sophisticated. To avoid enemy defenses, and planes, to coordinate etc..

Less planes, means less pilots, less support crew, less airbases, less training programs etc.. And we are not alone, I read last year China's military modernization they are cutting 400,000 men from their armed forces. So that they can put that money towards buying new hardware.


38 posted on 05/14/2005 11:48:16 AM PDT by ran15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Fido969

Put some Snowe on it!


39 posted on 05/14/2005 11:49:50 AM PDT by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paulus Invictus
But what about CA, OR, WA? They need some sort of cleansing too.

That shows it isn't as political as some are saying. The west coast is becoming arguably our key strategic area. With the rise of the pacific rim economically.

Florida is also strategic in its location. West Africa, North Africa, the middle east, and the Carribean.

40 posted on 05/14/2005 11:54:03 AM PDT by ran15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson