Reply With Quote
Tell us your conspiracy theory.
Does it bother you that your Chumpette is a snitch?Kori browses her own forum and now it's your new conspiracy theory.
Tell us your conspiracy theory.
Does it bother you that your Chumpette is a snitch?
Tell us how he snitched in your latest conspiracy theory.
Or fold.
He folds, but I bet he's got a great deflection coming up!
You denying that your friend is a snitch?
You didn't tell us how he "snitched". You fold.
Keep doing your Chump impressions, ABX7.
Fold and deflect. Fold and deflect. It's your thing.
I'm not deflecting from the fact that a snitch is in your ranks.
We don't really need more military spending. The issue is one of manpower, staffing, and the pace of operations.
More money may provide some mitigation of the problems by providing a boost to recruitment, but that is not going to be sufficient to solve the problem, which is systemic and cultural, as noted in the articles.
It is quite Obama's fault. The pushing of missions when there was not sufficient manpower, such as sending ships out at 80% strength, thereby overworking and undertraining them to the point of catastrophic and fatal accidents. Here we have essentially the exact same causes playing out in two different branches of the military. This was fully present and obvious in the Obama administration, and has gotten worse under the Trump administration.
Trump's administration is too corrupt and alarmingly incompetent to solve this problem. as noted in the OP article, his bizarre and hapless kowtowing to the North Korean dictatorship has made the problem of readiness even worse.
Obama definitely deserves blame for not solving the problem under his watch. Call a strike a strike man.
Trump will fully be to blame by the exact same token.
Smh. The world through conservative-colored glasses.
Would you like some wine with that confirmation bias?
In all due seriousness, if this is your take, you probably didn't really read through either article. For me your statement here simply shows how comically inept and out of touch with reality modern conservatives are. You either didn't read the article (ignorance), or read it but couldn't see past your own confirmation bias (faulty critical thinking). If you can't even understand how the problem is playing out in reality, you will have a much smaller chance of actually addressing it.
If you think I am being overly critical here, draw the line between the following two questions:
What specifically do the articles say is the problem, and how does that directly and explicitly support your statement here?
The United States, for better or worse has shouldered that burden. It provides us with a great deal of soft power.
Indeed.
We have been using contractors as proxy ground troops entirely too much. It hides the true costs of our engagements, and inflates those costs behind the scenes with the addition of profit motive.
Depends.
What countries would step into the security vacuum left by a drastically reduced US military?
Gabbard is looking more and more like a paid-for manchurian candidate whose only real platform seems to be directed from somewhere else...
Russian hypersonic weapons are not as operational as many seem to think, and the Russian government claims. Russia can ill-afford another arms race, so I find their pushing the technology kind of self-defeating.
she's 2020's Jill Stein
(nods) I think we are going to have to put some serious effort into finding out just how much Russian money is flowing and to where.
The current administration and Trump party will not go along with that, but it will need to be done as soon as Democrats take back the executive branch.
It doesn’t add up. We projected same or more power for 1/4th of the cost 50 years ago. At an average 3% inflation rate, it would take ~125 years to match up what we spend now. Not to mention that military heavily tilted to technology now, which actually gets cheaper, not more expensive over time.
Times have changed too. This is not WWII or the Cold War anymore. Our deterring factor is obviously fairly greatly curtailed, considering advances by NK, Russia, and the turmoil in the Middle East.
So our ROI has greatly diminished over time. Time to back up and see where we’re spending our money.
This is something the SASC is constantly in charge of doing, but they are swayed by special interest groups. We won't see any shift in policy as long as politicians keep getting rich from government jobs. As long as the committee focuses on keeping jobs in their sectors instead of what's best for the country we'll keep having these issues.
Last edited by DMC; 01-02-2020 at 12:10 PM.
ROI would certainly be interesting, albeit enormously hard, to attempt to quantify.
We need a definite counter to the Chinese/Russian authoritarian narrative. Someone needs to be the proponent for human rights and freedom.
We can't do that effectively if other countries fall into the orbits of authoritarians themselves.
Not sure how to put a price tag on that.
We don't need to police the world. Bad happens. You cannot be the savior of the world with a budget.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions