I think Obama's more credible and cogent, but then, I agree with him on most things. I don't think he's curb-stomping Romney as well as I'd like.
I do think the tone has been more respectful and constructive than the last one. I suspect that the comedy speeches at the dinner helped defuse some of the unpleasantness.
At work, so will likely pull it up on YouTube later. Judging by Facebook Obama is still destroying this county, didn't kill bin Laden, and will kill Israel.
It was really interesting to hear both candidates talk about Afghanistan, both using fairly positive terms for the training programs of Afghani local forces.
Having had a few highly publicised Australian casualties killed in green on blue incidents, that kind of thinking simply doesn't exist here. I'm not saying the American position is wrong (I suspect it's probably a lot more right than our position)... just that it's interesting how much it can differ between allies over a few incidents.
Mannahnin wrote: It was interesting to see them both avoid the subject of green on blue attacks.
It's a thorny subject for both.
Obama talking about it can open attacks for "why leave if they are not ready for peace".
Romney talking about it can open attacks for "why stay if they are killing us."
But it's a legit question to ask in relation to policy on Afghanistan and whether our works have been fruitful and the country is better off. Afghanistan is a big, hard question, and it justifies hard questions like that one.
I do think he did. He got told on Israel, too. I loved the bit where Obama contrasted their visits to Israel. Romney did it for fundraising; Obama visited the Holocaust museum and familes who've been victims of missile attacks. Romney had no response to it.
The "green on blue" question though covers too much
1. Did you know we were not allowed to play 40K or explain 40K to them if Afghani were near by? Something to do with Chaos Gods and the Emperor being veiwed as a God
I think Obama's more credible and cogent, but then, I agree with him on most things. I don't think he's curb-stomping Romney as well as I'd like.
I do think the tone has been more respectful and constructive than the last one. I suspect that the comedy speeches at the dinner helped defuse some of the unpleasantness.
I agree that the tone was more respectful.
However, as someone who first registered to vote for Obama 4 years ago, and has swung towards Romney after the debates (was still leaning to vote to re-elect Obama before the first debate) I was again disappointed by Obama's tone.
What happened to the man I voted for, who was going to work across the aisle? Horses and bayonets... are you serious?
Particularly his closing statement. Obama's chance to win back my vote was to say more of what HE would do, to continue to guide the economy without going further into debt, to handle the issues abroad (since this was a foreign policy debate), and to work with Republicans.
I heard way more language about working across the aisle from Romney than I did from Obama. And that's what I'm voting for. I'm sick of this gridlock. Both side blames the other, but only one candidate was using language about working WITH the other side today... and that's the candidate that has won my vote over the last month of debates.
So, again, as someone who registered to vote for Obama 4 years ago... I'm voting for Romney based almost solely on these debates. I can't trust ads / news / talking points / etc. I was going to base my vote on what they said. And from what they said, I like Romney more for the economy, and he moderated his stance to be more of what it was when he was governor, and what I would be willing to vote for. I like Obama, and do not regret my vote from 4 years ago. But the time for "emergency measures" and insane levels of spending, starting with Bush and continuing with Obama, is over in my opinion. Give me a businessman who will project a strong stance of America abroad, yet take a moderate stance when actually governing (as he did in Massachusetts, afaik but I'm sure Mannahnin would know better).
I will say I was disappointed with Romney for the far right rhetoric used to get the Republican nomination. But as a moderate, independent voter, I am glad he has moved to a more central position. I wish he would be more consistent on his stances. But honestly, this race has been as much about Obama losing my vote as it has been Romney winning it... and Romney has taken the strides he needed to for me to feel confident enough to vote for him, and Obama has not addressed the huge, screaming issues in my mind (16 TRILLION in debt................) enough for me to want another 4 years of his term (although again, I am happy that I voted for him in 2008).
Sorry for the book, had been waiting to give my stance until all 3 debates had concluded, but my mind is now made up... and I'll be early voting this weekend.
I wanna say first and foremost... nothing in this debate changed the dynamics of the race, Having said that, here's what I got...
Mitt Romney: Attacking me is not an answer.
Woah...
Barack Obama: Here’s what I’ve learned since being the Commander in Chief – You gotta be clear
I think I heard this at least twice... uh...Benghazi anyone? Failed Hounduran coup? Iranian Green Revolution?
The only thing clear about Obama foreign policy is that the perception is he treats our friends like enemies and our enemies like friends.
Obama says our alliance with Israel is stronger than ever…
Really? Does Bibi know this?
Obama talks down to Mitt Romney – “We got ships that go underwater called submarines.”
They’re called boats.. Prez dude.... Submarines are called boats.
And the Horses / Bayonet comment... uh, as far as I know, the Marines still use Bayonet... don't they that Jihadin? (irrelevent tho, but funny)
Mitt Romney: On day one, I will call China a currency manipulator. It will allow us to put tariffs on goods where they’re stealing jobs.
I think this was Mitt's strongest part of this debate.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
What's interesting I thought is that Romney had ample opportunity to engage the Libyan/Bengahzi snafu... I wonder if he chose not to in order to be more moderate or un-Bush like...?
Mitt's bits on currency manipulation are silly. Obama should probably have pointed out that we did that several times in the 90s and it had no useful effect. That's why we stopped doing it.
Personally, I thought the movie was really good. I can get into Nick Cage's performance - always a wild card in situations like this - while also enjoying the continued brilliance of veterans such as Ron Perlman. I felt that the scenery was brilliantly portrayed, no doubt due to the fact that it was mostly filmed in eastern europe - far superior to a studio for a film such as this. The only part of this epic journey that I had an issue with was the ending, which upon further investigation was changed and tacked on at in post. Overall, I give it a B+.
RiTides wrote: Particularly his closing statement. Obama's chance to win back my vote was to say more of what HE would do, to continue to guide the economy without going further into debt, to handle the issues abroad (since this was a foreign policy debate), and to work with Republicans.
I heard way more language about working across the aisle from Romney than I did from Obama. And that's what I'm voting for. I'm sick of this gridlock. Both side blames the other, but only one candidate was using language about working WITH the other side today... and that's the candidate that has won my vote over the last month of debates.
So, again, as someone who registered to vote for Obama 4 years ago... I'm voting for Romney based almost solely on these debates. I can't trust ads / news / talking points / etc. I was going to base my vote on what they said. And from what they said, I like Romney more for the economy, and he moderated his stance to be more of what it was when he was governor, and what I would be willing to vote for. I like Obama, and do not regret my vote from 4 years ago. But the time for "emergency measures" and insane levels of spending, starting with Bush and continuing with Obama, is over in my opinion. Give me a businessman who will project a strong stance of America abroad, yet take a moderate stance when actually governing (as he did in Massachusetts, afaik but I'm sure Mannahnin would know better).
Speaking as someone who lived next to Romney's state the whole time he was there, and for years before and after, he has substantially overblown his achievements in bipartisanship. His main ability to do that was because in Massachusetts he was willing to adopt more moderate views. He instituted the precursor to Obamacare, which was a Republican idea but served the Democratic aim of covering the uninsured. His party has since completely disowned the concept for purely political reasons.
I don't see the spending of the last four years as in any way insane. The tax and spend policies of the Republicans and the Democrats during the Bush administration are what drove us into the hole we're in. Two unfunded wars and an unfunded mandate of Medicare expansion, done in a way which categorically refused to use the collective buying/bargaining power of the program to get cheap Rx prices and instead was a massive giveaway to pharmaceutical companies. Combine those with a massive housing bubble and financial markets collapse brought on by deregulation and insufficient oversight of suspect investment instruments. This has resulted in a massive loss of tax revenue as well, which is a big part of what's keeping the deficit big. The deficit will to a large extent repair itself as the economy recovers. The recovery would have been faster (as economists like Paul Krugman have pointed out) if we actually had MORE and smarter spending, but the nature of our gridlocked government has made that extremely difficult if not impossible.
Romney's continued pretense that the last four years have been anything other than a slow but stead climb out a ditch we drove into at high speed over the preceding eight years is simple denial of reality. Said pretense makes implicit the promise that he does not intend to continue the policies that are continuing our recovery, but instead wishes to go back to Bush-style tax and regulatory policies that will drive us right back into the ditch.
My only shadows of doubt about that are the ones engendered by his substantial inconsistencies and ambiguities in rhetoric and policy over the past twelve months. He won the first debate by completely changing his expressed opinions and plans and agreeing more with the President's policies, so the President wasn't sure quite how to respond. He kept this one close again by agreeing on the vast majority of specifics (especially in regards to foreign policy), and disagreeing in generalities and non-factual areas.
Obama won big time, however, I am not so sure if it will stop the rise of Romney in the polls or turn it around as this campaign is more about economy and majority of voters believe Romney is better suited.
Obama's got the uphill fight of the economy. When people are hurting they don't necessarily look back too far for causes. This is why Romney is able to use "we can't take another four years like this" as a slogan and argument. Because he can rely on a large number of voters disregarding the fact that the last four years have been a difficult climb upward out of a ditch Obama didn't drive us into, but that took years of tax policy, spending, and housing bubble to dig.
In our divisive political climate people also have (to some extent) the ability to choose their own facts. Both Obama and Romney quoted factual numbers about the economy is the debates. They each talk about the numbers which favor their argument and spin events to favor their view. The average viewer already has his mind made up, and rather than researching them, just chooses to believe the guy he already agrees with. Most folks don't want to read a ton of websites, papers, articles and so forth to fact-check them both. Not to say that doing so will necessarily result in agreeing with me, of course.
I thought the exchange wherein Obama schooled Romney about naval power vs number of ships was extremely telling about just how out of touch and unqualified Mitt Romney is for the job, and even hints that he has no understanding whatsoever of global power struggles.
I honestly think Romney came off looking like the say-anything-to-win-but-don't-understand-it-myself stereotype he has been played up as.
His and Ryan's silly arguments about ship count really do sound dumb. Dumber than those guys actually are; so to me they come off as disrespectful toward the voters. They can't seriously think we're dumb enough to believe "fewer ships = weak Navy", can they?
Mannahnin wrote: His and Ryan's silly arguments about ship count really do sound dumb. Dumber than those guys actually are; so to me they come off as disrespectful toward the voters. They can't seriously think we're dumb enough to believe "fewer ships = weak Navy", can they?
Uh... fewer ships/boats would mean weaker Navy...
But, what I don't understand is this: When did we draw down the fleet? I thought the last time we did was during Bush's years... I don't think the Obama administration reduced anything as far as the Navy fleet. (they did stop the F-22 and I think the DDX platforms).
I guess they're worried about the sequestration? The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We’re now at under 285. If the sequestration goes thru then we’re headed down to the low 200s. Maybe that's what he's driving at... and if so, he did a poor job 'splaining that.
You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.
Well Obama right on Force Projection. Issue though is ships to transport armor and equipment...plus the "almighty" bullet boats. We do use bayonets though.....I leave it at that.
edit
Over course of 5 yrs the Air Force and the Navy went through two drawdowns already
Mannahnin wrote: His and Ryan's silly arguments about ship count really do sound dumb. Dumber than those guys actually are; so to me they come off as disrespectful toward the voters. They can't seriously think we're dumb enough to believe "fewer ships = weak Navy", can they?
Mannahnin wrote: His and Ryan's silly arguments about ship count really do sound dumb. Dumber than those guys actually are; so to me they come off as disrespectful toward the voters. They can't seriously think we're dumb enough to believe "fewer ships = weak Navy", can they?
Uh... fewer ships/boats would mean weaker Navy...
Not if the smaller fleet has superior ships, weapons, communications, sensory equipment, etc., etc., which can easily make a smaller fleet still the more powerful fleet compared to a more numerous fleet comprised of inferior ships. Romney and Ryan's (stupid) argument hinges on the premise that because we have fewer ships now that we did nearly 100 years ago, our Navy is actually weaker than it was then. Which is simply moronic.
whembly wrote: I guess they're worried about the sequestration? The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We’re now at under 285. If the sequestration goes thru then we’re headed down to the low 200s. Maybe that's what he's driving at... and if so, he did a poor job 'splaining that.
Okay, they if they need 313 ships to carry out their current missions and planned activities, then maybe we need to scale back those missions and activities. How many carrier groups do we need to utterly dominate the Navies of every other country on Earth combined, as we presently do?
whembly wrote: Uh... fewer ships/boats would mean weaker Navy...
If Estonia buys 500 rowboats, do they have the best navy in the world?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote: Okay, they if they need 313 ships to carry out their current missions and planned activities, then maybe we need to scale back those missions and activities. How many carrier groups do we need to utterly dominate the Navies of every other country on Earth combined, as we presently do?
Are you saying you don't think we need 1 carrier group for every other carrier in the world? Listen bro, perhaps you don't see the threat posted by Thailand's Chakri Nareubet, but someday they're going to get enough spare parts to fix the single, 1967-era figher present on it, and where will we be then?
I don't want to live in a world where we don't check that threat with our own 4 billion dollar carrier (plus attendant fleet).
Not if the smaller fleet has superior ships, weapons, communications, sensory equipment, etc., etc., which can easily make a smaller fleet still the more powerful fleet compared to a more numerous fleet comprised of inferior ships. Romney and Ryan's (stupid) argument hinges on the premise that because we have fewer ships now that we did nearly 100 years ago, our Navy is actually weaker than it was then. Which is simply moronic.
All it takes is one missile getting through and nailing something to make it into a multi million dollar foating junk pile. So a ship out of action either being heavily damage or destroyed. Where do you go to make up the loss. Do you strip another fleet of the same ship that the other loss? Do you bring one out from mothballs? DO you bring the fleet out of the danger area to avoid more loss? Have to have a backup on the spot to cover the hole in fleet protection. What happens if multiple ships gets nailed in the same fleet.
edit
A missile can come from a sub, aircraft or another ship. God forbid if we're within range of a landbase air wing. A carrier fleet a high payoff target. Some country going to be willing to sacrifice a airwing to nail a carrier.
Mannahnin wrote: His and Ryan's silly arguments about ship count really do sound dumb. Dumber than those guys actually are; so to me they come off as disrespectful toward the voters. They can't seriously think we're dumb enough to believe "fewer ships = weak Navy", can they?
Uh... fewer ships/boats would mean weaker Navy...
Not if the smaller fleet has superior ships, weapons, communications, sensory equipment, etc., etc., which can easily make a smaller fleet still the more powerful fleet compared to a more numerous fleet comprised of inferior ships. Romney and Ryan's (stupid) argument hinges on the premise that because we have fewer ships now that we did nearly 100 years ago, our Navy is actually weaker than it was then. Which is simply moronic.\
You realize you just made the argument for the German philosophy on tanks in World War Two, right?
I guess they're worried about the sequestration? The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We’re now at under 285. If the sequestration goes thru then we’re headed down to the low 200s. Maybe that's what he's driving at... and if so, he did a poor job 'splaining that.
That's pretty much exactly what he said, and it was followed by horses and bayonets and ships that go underwater.
Romney should have fired back tha USS Ohio has been in service for 31 years and no replacemet is in sight. Enterprise is 51 years old and her peers of the Nimitz class are an average of 21 years old. The Naval Air wing averages 18 years old making it the oldest in history.
Romney missed an oppourtunity to take Obama's snide comments and shove them in his face.
I guess they're worried about the sequestration? The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We’re now at under 285. If the sequestration goes thru then we’re headed down to the low 200s. Maybe that's what he's driving at... and if so, he did a poor job 'splaining that.
That's pretty much exactly what he said, and it was followed by horses and bayonets and ships that go underwater.
Romney should have fired back tha USS Ohio has been in service for 31 years and no replacemet is in sight. Enterprise is 51 years old and her peers of the Nimitz class are an average of 21 years old. The Naval Air wing averages 18 years old making it the oldest in history.
Romney missed an oppourtunity to take Obama's snide comments and shove them in his face.
He made that point on the stump... guess that's why I remembered that.
Must have missed that part when he said that tonight.
Didn't realize those ships/boats were that old. Didn't we retrofit/update them during Gulf War 1/2? This pique my interest... off to google land to do some reading...
Military folks will always think that the military is the most important thing in the budget.
Yup... that's true.
Just like poor people will always think that wellfare is the most important thing in the budget.
Yup... we're the "gimmie dat" generation...
People are selfish and don't want cuts that affect them.
So true...
I don't want the VA to be cut
I don't either. LIke I said in the past... whatever the VA needs, they should get... in fact, I'd go far as making those institutions the "cream of healthcare providers" in the World.
Military folks will always think that the military is the most important thing in the budget.
Just like poor people will always think that wellfare is the most important thing in the budget.
People are selfish and don't want cuts that affect them.
I don't want the VA to be cut
I laughed at a Congressional election ad on tv the other day. It basically went;
Bob says he's for jobs. But he voted for money for California. Then he voted for money for this other state. Then he voted for money for this other state. Tell him he needs to stop wasting money and vote for money for Our state.
I mean, if every Congressman voted only for their state, no state would get Anything.
Military folks will always think that the military is the most important thing in the budget.
Just like poor people will always think that wellfare is the most important thing in the budget.
People are selfish and don't want cuts that affect them.
I don't want the VA to be cut
I laughed at a Congressional election ad on tv the other day. It basically went;
Bob says he's for jobs. But he voted for money for California. Then he voted for money for this other state. Then he voted for money for this other state. Tell him he needs to stop wasting money and vote for money for Our state.
I mean, if every Congressman voted only for their state, no state would get Anything.
There was an awesome section during one of the Daily Show's during the RNC where they asked the different delegates about which states get more than they give and should be fired.
AustonT wrote: [Romney should have fired back tha USS Ohio has been in service for 31 years and no replacemet is in sight. Enterprise is 51 years old and her peers of the Nimitz class are an average of 21 years old. The Naval Air wing averages 18 years old making it the oldest in history.
Is that necessarily a problem? The B-52 is expected to be in service until the 2040s, give it a ~90 year service life.
It is indeed a problem. In the context of nuclear ships the older ones simply don't have the electrical power budget to take modern upgrades. It's the real reason Enterprise will retire. You have the same issue in the Buffs but it was cheaper to do generator upgrades. In the subs it's an issue of structural integrity, same same with the surface vessels but for obvious reasons the death tubes are of greater concern. The truth is old planes are safer than old boats. Not by much thought. The age of the Air Force is nothing to crow about either. Remember the KC 135 that had an engine pod fall the feth off AFTER being reskinned?
Huh, I didn't know that. It's kinda funny, you think of naval obsolescence as being a better of weapon systems, but you never really consider just plain having enough electricity.
I'm absolutely in favor of updating stuff. When I've read up on it, I've usually see a ton of waste in procurement and development of new weapons systems. We've got to keep those costs under control and not waste billions at a whack on wonder planes and gimmicks which don't fulfill real needs or perform as needed.
And seriously, how many carrier groups do we have, again? How many does every other nation have, put together? By just how MUCH do we need to outgun everyone else put together, including our allies?
The only thing clear about Obama foreign policy is that the perception is he treats our friends like enemies and our enemies like friends.
Among conservatives. Its a difficult situation because we're in a period of transitions, historical friends* are no longer as valuable as they once were and are becoming expendable.
*I also think its a mistake to consider international politics in terms of friendship.
Mannahnin wrote: His and Ryan's silly arguments about ship count really do sound dumb. Dumber than those guys actually are; so to me they come off as disrespectful toward the voters. They can't seriously think we're dumb enough to believe "fewer ships = weak Navy", can they?
Uh... fewer ships/boats would mean weaker Navy...
Not if the smaller fleet has superior ships, weapons, communications, sensory equipment, etc., etc., which can easily make a smaller fleet still the more powerful fleet compared to a more numerous fleet comprised of inferior ships. Romney and Ryan's (stupid) argument hinges on the premise that because we have fewer ships now that we did nearly 100 years ago, our Navy is actually weaker than it was then. Which is simply moronic.\
You realize you just made the argument for the German philosophy on tanks in World War Two, right?
Nope. More like the argument for why Marine Recon troops are worth their cost and are a more effective fighting force, even in fewer numbers, than folks like Iraqi Republican Guard.
Digression: I found out today that "Fruity" Rudy Reyes, from Generation Kill, actually played himself in the miniseries! That's the real dude playing himself; the prettiest marine. Mind = blown.
I heard way more language about working across the aisle from Romney than I did from Obama.
I've said this many times before, but I feel it bears repeating: there is no reason to consider bipartisanship good. In the past that was how our government functioned because the parties were less powerful, and geographic circumstances tended to have a greater impact on how any given representative would vote. Bipartisanship in that case wasn't a good thing so much as the natural result of political reality, which was itself largely shaped by limited media access.
If you want to end the present gridlock, then what you should be pushing for is the lifting of restrictions on legitimate third parties while also forming coalitions of like-minded individuals who can fund them.
Digression: I found out today that "Fruity" Rudy Reyes, from Generation Kill, actually played himself in the miniseries! That's the real dude playing himself; the prettiest marine. Mind = blown.
Yeah a few of the guys were involved with the series. Kocher played another guy in the series (forget who) a couple more were advisors (one was actual hired on as the Humvee mechanic).
Just so I have some justification for saying I was on topic, my response to the FB bickering over the debate:
Vote red and the country will go up in flames. Vote blue and the country will go up in flames. Vote for the slightly more blue or red minor party that has no chance of winning anyway because everyone is voting red or blue to keep the country from going up in flames...and the country will go up in flames...just like last election and the one before that.
Maybe we just need to let the country burn a little.
Mannahnin wrote: It was interesting to see them both avoid the subject of green on blue attacks.
Yeah, that really surprised me. I haven't really followed the conversation on Afghanistan in the US for maybe six years now, but the conversation here is, basically entirely on green on blue, with a general consensus of 'feth 'em if they're gonna kill the guys trying to help them'.
Without having really thought about it, I had assumed the US tone would be similar, and was surprised that both candidates were broadly positive about Afghanistan. Perhaps it's just the politics of not wanting to talk down an operation that you are, or maybe soon will be, commander in chief of?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote: I do think he did. He got told on Israel, too. I loved the bit where Obama contrasted their visits to Israel. Romney did it for fundraising; Obama visited the Holocaust museum and familes who've been victims of missile attacks. Romney had no response to it.
Yeah, Obama knew Romney was going to come at him over his 'apology tour', and that it didn't include a trip to Israel. Obama had an answer prepared and smashed it.
Jihadin wrote: What happens if multiple ships gets nailed in the same fleet.
You most likely lose the engagement. Losing scenarios exist, and a carrier group losing either the carrier or a large number of escorts is one of them, and it isn't one we can address beyond making both unlikely.
The idea that the US relies on technological supremacy is not new, we've been doing it for decades and will be doing it well into the future because we simply can't match our most likely rivals for manpower or a willingness to sacrifice their own lives.
whembly wrote: The only thing clear about Obama foreign policy is that the perception is he treats our friends like enemies and our enemies like friends.
Which is why there's economic sanctions on Israel, and military hardware sold to Iran.
Oh wait, I'm thinking of Republican fantasy land. Here in the real world Obama has basically continued the same international policy of every post Cold War American president, Democrat or Republican, of building general consensus towards isolating and disempowering problem countries.
Well, other than Bush II, of course, who invaded troublesome countries and yelled at his allies if they didn't cheerlead hard enough.
Romney should have fired back tha USS Ohio has been in service for 31 years and no replacemet is in sight. Enterprise is 51 years old and her peers of the Nimitz class are an average of 21 years old. The Naval Air wing averages 18 years old making it the oldest in history.
Romney missed an oppourtunity to take Obama's snide comments and shove them in his face.
Ouze wrote: Is that necessarily a problem? The B-52 is expected to be in service until the 2040s, give it a ~90 year service life.
Besides the mentioned problems with upgrade potential, there's the even worse problem of fatigue life. The B-52 benefits from the fortunate combination of being a simple "bomb truck" aircraft that doesn't have to deal with a (physically) demanding mission, and the existence of a large pool of aircraft that sat around waiting for WWIII to begin without accumulating many hours of flying time. Compare that to, say, an F-18 which has seen 18 years of combat use, and in a role where it has to deal with higher structural loads from high-g maneuvers, huge impact forces from carrier landings, etc. At some point your ships/aircraft/etc might still be enough, on paper, to defeat any plausible opponent, but they'll literally be falling apart.
Piston Honda wrote: Obama won big time, however, I am not so sure if it will stop the rise of Romney in the polls or turn it around as this campaign is more about economy and majority of voters believe Romney is better suited.
Romney's climb in the polls stopped a few days before the second debate. From there we've seen basically stable numbers, maybe with a very small drift to Obama. This basically returns the numbers to their pre-convention position, of a small but fairly static lead to Obama.
sebster wrote: Perhaps it's just the politics of not wanting to talk down an operation that you are, or maybe soon will be, commander in chief of?
Romney's FP narrative, via Ryan and other proxies, has focused strongly on the fact that Obama didn't secure a SOFA in Iraq and has, thereby, failed to secure our gains. If he pushes the blue on green issue and says we should pull out he looks like a hypocrite, which is charge many have leveled against him before. If he doubles down he runs into the issue of how unpopular Afghanistan is.
If Obama does the same he either looks like he's sacrificing American lives for his own purposes, or feeds the argument regarding the absence of a SOFA with Iraq.
This is a point which Romney could easily have won, bar the focus on the Iraq SOFA.
I heard way more language about working across the aisle from Romney than I did from Obama.
I've said this many times before, but I feel it bears repeating: there is no reason to consider bipartisanship good. In the past that was how our government functioned because the parties were less powerful, and geographic circumstances tended to have a greater impact on how any given representative would vote. Bipartisanship in that case wasn't a good thing so much as the natural result of political reality, which was itself largely shaped by limited media access.
If you want to end the present gridlock, then what you should be pushing for is the lifting of restrictions on legitimate third parties while also forming coalitions of like-minded individuals who can fund them.
I like the idea of bipartisanship. I would like to see the parties working together and more honest compromise. IMHO I think Obama tried to do that initially. He tried to reach across the isle, but with the responses he got, I'm surprised he didn't pull back a bloody stump. I wonder how much more might have gotten done if when the dems had both houses they just said screw it and did everything their way with no effort to compromise.
Mannahnin wrote: Not if the smaller fleet has superior ships, weapons, communications, sensory equipment, etc., etc., which can easily make a smaller fleet still the more powerful fleet compared to a more numerous fleet comprised of inferior ships. Romney and Ryan's (stupid) argument hinges on the premise that because we have fewer ships now that we did nearly 100 years ago, our Navy is actually weaker than it was then. Which is simply moronic.
The UK was noted in 1938 as having the greatest navy, because of how many ships they had, and how many of those ships had really massive tonnage. Except most were pre-WWI vessels, and quite out of date.
For political and economic reasons there was no effort made to reform the fleet. Romney's insistance on ship count reminds me of that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote: You realize you just made the argument for the German philosophy on tanks in World War Two, right?
Yes, but so what?
Thing is, the US has a military technological edge, and is obviously going to continue to use it. It also has an overwhelming advantage in quantity.
But in a world where people are talking about the need to balance the budget, you don't get to continue to chase unlimited advantage in technology and in quantity, and pretend it doesn't cost anything. At some point you have to set a limit to what your military can have, and there is no way that seven carrier groups each with the capacity to shoot destroy any other navy on Earth isn't miles past that.
RiTides wrote: I heard way more language about working across the aisle from Romney than I did from Obama.
I've said this many times before, but I feel it bears repeating: there is no reason to consider bipartisanship good. In the past that was how our government functioned because the parties were less powerful, and geographic circumstances tended to have a greater impact on how any given representative would vote. Bipartisanship in that case wasn't a good thing so much as the natural result of political reality, which was itself largely shaped by limited media access.
If you want to end the present gridlock, then what you should be pushing for is the lifting of restrictions on legitimate third parties while also forming coalitions of like-minded individuals who can fund them.
I like the idea of bipartisanship. I would like to see the parties working together and more honest compromise. IMHO I think Obama tried to do that initially. He tried to reach across the isle, but with the responses he got, I'm surprised he didn't pull back a bloody stump. I wonder how much more might have gotten done if when the dems had both houses they just said screw it and did everything their way with no effort to compromise.
Agreed. They and we might have been much better off had they not wasted a year pandering to Republicans and trying to get bipartisan support on healthcare. If they just worked on their own party (which was difficult enough) and passed a bill in a couple of months, then went straight to jobs and stimulus. Instead of spending the summer with the Republicans making up paranoid fantasies about death panels and scaring panicky seniors into screaming at their representatives at town halls over the summer, just ram it right through and then on to jobs and economic stimulus. They had two years and if they were more aggressive using them, instead of wasting half the time just trying to get Republican cooperation on health care, they might have gotten more done and kept the respect of the electorate instead of getting punished in 2010.
I think Obama was too idealistic and too optimistic about bipartisanship. At least until after the ACA fun times.
whembly wrote: Yup... we're the "gimmie dat" generation...
No, we're people. The poor have always wanted their lot improved. The rich have always wanted lower tax cuts. The military has always thought they needed more money because the enemy might just have something deadly.
This is just how people are.
Well, except Eisenhower. That dude straight out warned you all about building a military industrial complex. Y'all seemed to have ignored him, though, which is a bit of a shame.
sebster wrote: Perhaps it's just the politics of not wanting to talk down an operation that you are, or maybe soon will be, commander in chief of?
Romney's FP narrative, via Ryan and other proxies, has focused strongly on the fact that Obama didn't secure a SOFA in Iraq and has, thereby, failed to secure our gains. If he pushes the blue on green issue and says we should pull out he looks like a hypocrite, which is charge many have leveled against him before. If he doubles down he runs into the issue of how unpopular Afghanistan is.
If Obama does the same he either looks like he's sacrificing American lives for his own purposes, or feeds the argument regarding the absence of a SOFA with Iraq.
This is a point which Romney could easily have won, bar the focus on the Iraq SOFA.
sebster wrote: Well, except Eisenhower. That dude straight out warned you all about building a military industrial complex. Y'all seemed to have ignored him, though, which is a bit of a shame.
Seriously, every time I read one of his quotes on the topic I'm saddened.
Mannahnin wrote: His and Ryan's silly arguments about ship count really do sound dumb. Dumber than those guys actually are; so to me they come off as disrespectful toward the voters. They can't seriously think we're dumb enough to believe "fewer ships = weak Navy", can they?
Uh... fewer ships/boats would mean weaker Navy...
Not if the smaller fleet has superior ships, weapons, communications, sensory equipment, etc., etc., which can easily make a smaller fleet still the more powerful fleet compared to a more numerous fleet comprised of inferior ships. Romney and Ryan's (stupid) argument hinges on the premise that because we have fewer ships now that we did nearly 100 years ago, our Navy is actually weaker than it was then. Which is simply moronic.\
You realize you just made the argument for the German philosophy on tanks in World War Two, right?
Who absolutely dominated with their armour, and only became outgunned by the sheer production capacity of North America.
sebster wrote: Well, except Eisenhower. That dude straight out warned you all about building a military industrial complex. Y'all seemed to have ignored him, though, which is a bit of a shame.
Seriously, every time I read one of his quotes on the topic I'm saddened.
Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, MOH, had some pretty interesting things to say on the subject in his 1935 book "War is a Racket"
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
Mannahnin wrote: His and Ryan's silly arguments about ship count really do sound dumb. Dumber than those guys actually are; so to me they come off as disrespectful toward the voters. They can't seriously think we're dumb enough to believe "fewer ships = weak Navy", can they?
Uh... fewer ships/boats would mean weaker Navy...
Not if the smaller fleet has superior ships, weapons, communications, sensory equipment, etc., etc., which can easily make a smaller fleet still the more powerful fleet compared to a more numerous fleet comprised of inferior ships. Romney and Ryan's (stupid) argument hinges on the premise that because we have fewer ships now that we did nearly 100 years ago, our Navy is actually weaker than it was then. Which is simply moronic.\
You realize you just made the argument for the German philosophy on tanks in World War Two, right?
Who absolutely dominated with their armour, and only became outgunned by the sheer production capacity of North America.
We out produced them and out repaired them. The issue with having Mercedes technicians make your tanks is you need Mercedes technicians to fix them. The American Shermans, Pershings, etc were easy to repair under just about any circumstance short of being actively shot at and had a mild mobility advantage on heavier German armor. The Panzers had their weak point but yeah over all the Allies won the armor war in Europe via mass shell fire from an ever growing line of Sherman, Churchill and Matilda main gun barrels.
However ships aren't tanks so taking this argument, even by way of comparison is more then a little silly. Personally I see a significant benefit to having a large Navy and Airforce even in peace time in the modern day and age. Ships and modern 4.5/5th gen aircraft take a significant amount of time to build. You can't just draft up a new Arleigh Burke class ship or blink in one of the new Aircraft Carrier or DDX class hulls like it's I Dream of Jeanie.
azazel the cat wrote: Who absolutely dominated with their armour, and only became outgunned by the sheer production capacity of North America.
No, that's completely wrong.
You look at the significant German victories, you look at the Fall of France, you look at Barbarossa putting them within sight of Moscow, and they did that with MkII, MkIII and a fairly small number of Mk IV tanks. French tanks were for the most part better than the Mk II and Mk III tanks, and only the Mk IV was comparable to the Soviet Mk IV, and even then the Soviet tank was overall superior and vastly more numerous.
You don't see Tigers in action until Case Blue, which vastly under achieved compared to what it needed to, and you don't see Panthers until Kursk, which was, of course, pretty much the last roll of the dice for the Germans, before Soviet production overwhelmed them.
And note that Kursk was July 1943. That's the same time the Western Allies were landing in Italy, and months before lend lease to the Soviets was up to meaningful amounts. The Germans were outgunned by production capacity, but it was Soviet production that did it, not American.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: We out produced them and out repaired them. The issue with having Mercedes technicians make your tanks is you need Mercedes technicians to fix them. The American Shermans, Pershings, etc were easy to repair under just about any circumstance short of being actively shot at and had a mild mobility advantage on heavier German armor. The Panzers had their weak point but yeah over all the Allies won the armor war in Europe via mass shell fire from an ever growing line of Sherman, Churchill and Matilda main gun barrels.
The Matilda? Ever growing line of Matildas... uh, they were out of production in 1943 and pretty much rubbish for at least a year before then, and phased during the North Afican campaign and never deployed to Western Europe, are you sure you didn't mean something else? Firefly maybe?
And the Western Allies success in Western Europe was due to three things - overwhelming air superiority, crippling resource shortages for the Wehrmacht preventing them from launching properly supported offensives, and the fact that about 80% of Germany's forces were in the East, getting their heads kicked in by Operation Bagration.
And of those three, only the last one really counts.
However ships aren't tanks so taking this argument, even by way of comparison is more then a little silly. Personally I see a significant benefit to having a large Navy and Airforce even in peace time in the modern day and age. Ships and modern 4.5/5th gen aircraft take a significant amount of time to build. You can't just draft up a new Arleigh Burke class ship or blink in one of the new Aircraft Carrier or DDX class hulls like it's I Dream of Jeanie.
Yes, but when you're facing a real and pressing budget issue, how much more stuff do you need than everyone else combined?
sebster wrote: Yes, but when you're facing a real and pressing budget issue, how much more stuff do you need than everyone else combined?
And then once you answer that question, answer it again with the knowledge that any war that could possibly require the use of such a large military would be almost guaranteed to go nuclear, at which point the only forces that matter are the ICBMs.
RiTides wrote: Particularly his closing statement. Obama's chance to win back my vote was to say more of what HE would do, to continue to guide the economy without going further into debt, to handle the issues abroad (since this was a foreign policy debate), and to work with Republicans.
I heard way more language about working across the aisle from Romney than I did from Obama. And that's what I'm voting for. I'm sick of this gridlock. Both side blames the other, but only one candidate was using language about working WITH the other side today... and that's the candidate that has won my vote over the last month of debates.
So, again, as someone who registered to vote for Obama 4 years ago... I'm voting for Romney based almost solely on these debates. I can't trust ads / news / talking points / etc. I was going to base my vote on what they said. And from what they said, I like Romney more for the economy, and he moderated his stance to be more of what it was when he was governor, and what I would be willing to vote for. I like Obama, and do not regret my vote from 4 years ago. But the time for "emergency measures" and insane levels of spending, starting with Bush and continuing with Obama, is over in my opinion. Give me a businessman who will project a strong stance of America abroad, yet take a moderate stance when actually governing (as he did in Massachusetts, afaik but I'm sure Mannahnin would know better).
Speaking as someone who lived next to Romney's state the whole time he was there, and for years before and after, he has substantially overblown his achievements in bipartisanship. His main ability to do that was because in Massachusetts he was willing to adopt more moderate views. He instituted the precursor to Obamacare, which was a Republican idea but served the Democratic aim of covering the uninsured. His party has since completely disowned the concept for purely political reasons.
I don't see the spending of the last four years as in any way insane. The tax and spend policies of the Republicans and the Democrats during the Bush administration are what drove us into the hole we're in. Two unfunded wars and an unfunded mandate of Medicare expansion, done in a way which categorically refused to use the collective buying/bargaining power of the program to get cheap Rx prices and instead was a massive giveaway to pharmaceutical companies. Combine those with a massive housing bubble and financial markets collapse brought on by deregulation and insufficient oversight of suspect investment instruments. This has resulted in a massive loss of tax revenue as well, which is a big part of what's keeping the deficit big. The deficit will to a large extent repair itself as the economy recovers. The recovery would have been faster (as economists like Paul Krugman have pointed out) if we actually had MORE and smarter spending, but the nature of our gridlocked government has made that extremely difficult if not impossible.
Romney's continued pretense that the last four years have been anything other than a slow but stead climb out a ditch we drove into at high speed over the preceding eight years is simple denial of reality. Said pretense makes implicit the promise that he does not intend to continue the policies that are continuing our recovery, but instead wishes to go back to Bush-style tax and regulatory policies that will drive us right back into the ditch.
My only shadows of doubt about that are the ones engendered by his substantial inconsistencies and ambiguities in rhetoric and policy over the past twelve months. He won the first debate by completely changing his expressed opinions and plans and agreeing more with the President's policies, so the President wasn't sure quite how to respond. He kept this one close again by agreeing on the vast majority of specifics (especially in regards to foreign policy), and disagreeing in generalities and non-factual areas.
Mann, you'll note I mention Bush when I spoke of the deficit. I registered to vote for change and vote for Obama 4 years ago.
"More and smarter" spending of course would've helped, but I do not believe federal government to be capable of it. Nor do I think we need it now. We need to wean off spending.
I am a moderate. Pure economywise, Romney looks better. I drive past a closed solar company every day on the way to work. I work for a startup of 35 people. As an independent, moderate voter, Romney makes more sense for the economy.
Indeed, the fastest way to lose my vote would've been to suggest "more and smarter" spending. The federal government is simply incapable of such, imo. My personal finances might look good if I could just spend more... but enough is enough. I also blame Bush. But I want solutions, not finger pointing and More spending. 16 trillion IS insane when we were at 5 before Bush's 8 years, and 10 before Obama's.
I'm voting based on that and Obama failed to address my screaming concerns about it. I would've liked to vote for him again but can't risk the idea he'll continue to spend, and fail to work with Republicans. How do you think "horses and bayonets" will play after the election? What happened to the positive man I voted for? The buck has to stop with him... he has done OK, even well, but he is complicit in the demonizing of the "other side", and gridlock, and I think moderate Romney (the only kind of rep I'd consider, same for dems) will get more done in the coming 4 years. Obama will only do so if he sweeps Congress. And that's been incredibly disappointing to me as an independent voter of his.
I know, blame the republicans- but the buck stops with the president. I will swing again if Romney wins but fails to work across the aisle, or deliver on smart trimming of the insane deficit path we're on.
sebster wrote: Yes, but when you're facing a real and pressing budget issue, how much more stuff do you need than everyone else combined?
And then once you answer that question, answer it again with the knowledge that any war that could possibly require the use of such a large military would be almost guaranteed to go nuclear, at which point the only forces that matter are the ICBMs.
Also, as an Obama voter, I do view his as being too idealistic at the beginning. But saying "screw them" and ramming through his own agenda, as some are suggesting above, regardless of opposition (which is not even possible with the filibuster) is not what I want my elected officials to do.
In fact, it is the fact that we're at that point (with him saying "I could say the sky is blue and they'd disagree with me") is a big part of the reason I have swung.
I understand the Republicans dug their heels in. It's just basic negotiating. You don't turn and complain to the voters "They won't work with me", you dig your heels in and you work out a compromise. He showed his hand too early, how far he was willing to bend, and the Republicans of course asked for more. If you've ever bought a car you'll know exactly what I'm talking about!!
It really bothers me that Democrats blame the Republicans, then use language like "horses and bayonets" and act innocent. I HATE the moral high ground, on both sides. Democrats saying they're more compassionate, Republicans more mindful of god, whatever. I want solutions, and solutions involve working ACROSS the aisle. Obama simply hasn't done it. He's the freaking president. If anyone can do it, it's the president.
Note how much more he got done in the spring when he started characterizing Congress as a "do nothing" congress. That's just being smart, and forced them to pass a few things that there was absolutely no hubbub over because he played it well. I don't want to hear excuses from my PRESIDENT. Get. It. Done.
If they had rammed through more democratic agenda items without working with Republicans, I would've swung my vote sooner. As it is, I'll be holding Romney to the same standard. With any luck, there will be a democratic Senate, and he'll HAVE to work with them. And how well he does that will primarily determine whether he has my support again in 4 years, or not.
Demonizing the other side never got anything done, imo. Smart negotiating does... and imo Obama was simply too idealistic and not smart about the way he approached Congress at the beginning, and then began demonizing the other side (as they were to him) and it all went downhill. I want compromise, I want moderation... comments like "horses and bayonets" are NOT winning my independent vote.
Mannahnin wrote:I'm absolutely in favor of updating stuff. When I've read up on it, I've usually see a ton of waste in procurement and development of new weapons systems. We've got to keep those costs under control and not waste billions at a whack on wonder planes and gimmicks which don't fulfill real needs or perform as needed.
And seriously, how many carrier groups do we have, again? How many does every other nation have, put together? By just how MUCH do we need to outgun everyone else put together, including our allies?
Is sent a PM to Whembly about some navy facts and summed t up with "Naval procurement is pandemic." We don't need wonder planes or ships, just real world combat units that suitably replace their predecessors without diminishing capabilities at a similar cost. Instead we get neutered, one size fits all, extremely expensive units that diminish our capabilities as they replace systems designed 40 years ago.
If we have a battle group for every carrier then there would be 11 CBG, organizationally I'm sure there are 11 but much like boomers it takes 3 carrirs to maintain one CBG on station. One on its way out or completing refit to go, one on station, and one on it's way back or in refit. A carrier group is a lot more than just a tit for tat number it's an all encompassing package that can make war on our behalf anywhere in the world so a real question would be "how many countries can be effected by a carrier group?" but the answer to your question is 8, without the Brits in the game there are 8 non-US carrier groups.
Mannahnin wrote: His and Ryan's silly arguments about ship count really do sound dumb. Dumber than those guys actually are; so to me they come off as disrespectful toward the voters. They can't seriously think we're dumb enough to believe "fewer ships = weak Navy", can they?
Uh... fewer ships/boats would mean weaker Navy...
Not if the smaller fleet has superior ships, weapons, communications, sensory equipment, etc., etc., which can easily make a smaller fleet still the more powerful fleet compared to a more numerous fleet comprised of inferior ships. Romney and Ryan's (stupid) argument hinges on the premise that because we have fewer ships now that we did nearly 100 years ago, our Navy is actually weaker than it was then. Which is simply moronic.\
You realize you just made the argument for the German philosophy on tanks in World War Two, right?
Nope. More like the argument for why Marine Recon troops are worth their cost and are a more effective fighting force, even in fewer numbers, than folks like Iraqi Republican Guard.
The Navy really is a numbers game. It's all well and good to say we have more carriers than the world combined, I'm more concerned about Cruiser, Destoyers, Frigates, and Corvettes. The backbone (and the numbers) of the fleet. Less numerous but more technical ships can't covr the numbers gap in those units, and because they aren't terribly glamorous no one is fighting for them beyond saying a number.
Digression: I found out today that "Fruity" Rudy Reyes, from Generation Kill, actually played himself in the miniseries! That's the real dude playing himself; the prettiest marine. Mind = blown.
I thought everyone knew that...the gunny is from the unit too I think. But on that I am not sure. Those guy's actual involvement probably made the show what it is.
Ouze wrote:
sebster wrote: Well, except Eisenhower. That dude straight out warned you all about building a military industrial complex. Y'all seemed to have ignored him, though, which is a bit of a shame.
Seriously, every time I read one of his quotes on the topic I'm saddened.
Piston Honda wrote: Obama won big time, however, I am not so sure if it will stop the rise of Romney in the polls or turn it around as this campaign is more about economy and majority of voters believe Romney is better suited.
will probably come down to Ohio.
hope there is no foul play.
Awww, thanks man. We're finally important... again... once every four years... *sigh*
I made a comment in the voting machine thread... 88 counties in Ohio, 3, maybe 4 counties consistently vote democrat. They're basically Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), Hamilton County (Cincinnati), and Franklin County (Columbus). Occasionally you see Dayton and Youngstown crop up on the dems side of things, but for the most part, 84 counties vote Republican... Here is a little image form the New York Times from 2008:
Barack beat McCain by 3.5%... Yet look at how many counties voted for Barack, yes, those are your major metropolitan areas, and yes they have a larger population, but its CRAZY to think that Ohio voted for Bush in 2004, and this was the difference in counties:
It's not that big of a difference, which goes to show how important Ohio is... Sadly, it's ONLY during the election season, otherwise no one likes our state lol.
Mannahnin wrote: His and Ryan's silly arguments about ship count really do sound dumb. Dumber than those guys actually are; so to me they come off as disrespectful toward the voters. They can't seriously think we're dumb enough to believe "fewer ships = weak Navy", can they?
Uh... fewer ships/boats would mean weaker Navy...
Not if the smaller fleet has superior ships, weapons, communications, sensory equipment, etc., etc., which can easily make a smaller fleet still the more powerful fleet compared to a more numerous fleet comprised of inferior ships. Romney and Ryan's (stupid) argument hinges on the premise that because we have fewer ships now that we did nearly 100 years ago, our Navy is actually weaker than it was then. Which is simply moronic.\
You realize you just made the argument for the German philosophy on tanks in World War Two, right?
Who absolutely dominated with their armour, and only became outgunned by the sheer production capacity of North America.
Yeah I dont want to piss on anyones chips like, but this isn't even debatable. Tech is everything.
When we invaded Iraq, one British Challenger rocked up in the desert, blasted 8 T55s to gak, and then happily drove off, took less than a couple minutes.
If you turn up with 10 ancient tanks/jets/ships against one top of the line one, your getting fethed 6 ways from Sunday no matter how you slice it.
Its probably the same with guys too.. I bet I could take out 30 Pygmies armed with Guava Halves if I had an MP5 and a few magazines.
Mannahnin wrote: His and Ryan's silly arguments about ship count really do sound dumb. Dumber than those guys actually are; so to me they come off as disrespectful toward the voters. They can't seriously think we're dumb enough to believe "fewer ships = weak Navy", can they?
Uh... fewer ships/boats would mean weaker Navy...
Not if the smaller fleet has superior ships, weapons, communications, sensory equipment, etc., etc., which can easily make a smaller fleet still the more powerful fleet compared to a more numerous fleet comprised of inferior ships. Romney and Ryan's (stupid) argument hinges on the premise that because we have fewer ships now that we did nearly 100 years ago, our Navy is actually weaker than it was then. Which is simply moronic.\
You realize you just made the argument for the German philosophy on tanks in World War Two, right?
Who absolutely dominated with their armour, and only became outgunned by the sheer production capacity of North America.
Yeah I dont want to piss on anyones chips like, but this isn't even debatable. Tech is everything.
When we invaded Iraq, one British Challenger rocked up in the desert, blasted 8 T55s to gak, and then happily drove off, took less than a couple minutes.
If you turn up with 10 ancient tanks/jets/ships against one top of the line one, your getting fethed 6 ways from Sunday no matter how you slice it.
Its probably the same with guys too.. I bet I could take out 30 Pygmies armed with Guava Halves if I had an MP5 and a few magazines.
That was a particularly vicious slice of mango wasn't it sir?
AustonT wrote: Arg, Biden is on CBS just falling all over himself, they really just should hide Joe somewhere until 2016.
Edit I guess it's from last night.
Oh Uncle Joe, always thinking of the American people and providing comic relief to Barry's straight man.
Quite the comedic duo those two. All we need now is like 1980s music and we can have a buddy cop movie
He's a straight shooting cop from the streets of Chicago trying to make his way to Captain. He's the department veteran, content where he's at. Together they're, Obama/Biden in Buddy Cop Movie 5: A Black guy and a White guy...
Ya know, not to be confused with Buddy Cop Movie 1: Two White guys, Buddy Cop Movie 2: Electric Boogaloo, Buddy Cop Movie 3: A Guy and Gal, and Buddy Cop Movie 4: A White guy and a Black Guy
Mannahnin wrote: His and Ryan's silly arguments about ship count really do sound dumb. Dumber than those guys actually are; so to me they come off as disrespectful toward the voters. They can't seriously think we're dumb enough to believe "fewer ships = weak Navy", can they?
Uh... fewer ships/boats would mean weaker Navy...
Holy crap, I want to print this out and frame it.
I know, this is like performance art.
Meanwhile, how does anyone think Mitt Romney will really be able to work with Democrats? I mean, the onus has been on Democrats to work with Republicans for the last four years, with Republicans constantly moving the goal posts on what they're willing to talk about. Now Romney says he will reach out to Democrats because he was able to do so in Massachusetts? I don't think so, Mitt. This whole election has been a complete repudiation of those days. Choosing Paul Ryan as a running mate is a very clear signal that Romney has zero plans to work with Democrats in anything but the our-war-or-the-highway approach of Ryan and the rest of the Tea Party.
RiTides wrote: What happened to the positive man I voted for?
He has had to deal with hysterical, cynical, treacherous Congressional Republicans for four years, and especially in the last two. There's nothing "independent" about switching horses in the middle of the river.
RiTides wrote: Also, as an Obama voter, I do view his as being too idealistic at the beginning. But saying "screw them" and ramming through his own agenda, as some are suggesting above, regardless of opposition (which is not even possible with the filibuster) is not what I want my elected officials to do.
In fact, it is the fact that we're at that point (with him saying "I could say the sky is blue and they'd disagree with me") is a big part of the reason I have swung.
I understand the Republicans dug their heels in. It's just basic negotiating. You don't turn and complain to the voters "They won't work with me", you dig your heels in and you work out a compromise. He showed his hand too early, how far he was willing to bend, and the Republicans of course asked for more. If you've ever bought a car you'll know exactly what I'm talking about!!
It really bothers me that Democrats blame the Republicans, then use language like "horses and bayonets" and act innocent. I HATE the moral high ground, on both sides. Democrats saying they're more compassionate, Republicans more mindful of god, whatever. I want solutions, and solutions involve working ACROSS the aisle. Obama simply hasn't done it. He's the freaking president. If anyone can do it, it's the president.
Note how much more he got done in the spring when he started characterizing Congress as a "do nothing" congress. That's just being smart, and forced them to pass a few things that there was absolutely no hubbub over because he played it well. I don't want to hear excuses from my PRESIDENT. Get. It. Done.
If they had rammed through more democratic agenda items without working with Republicans, I would've swung my vote sooner. As it is, I'll be holding Romney to the same standard. With any luck, there will be a democratic Senate, and he'll HAVE to work with them. And how well he does that will primarily determine whether he has my support again in 4 years, or not.
Demonizing the other side never got anything done, imo. Smart negotiating does... and imo Obama was simply too idealistic and not smart about the way he approached Congress at the beginning, and then began demonizing the other side (as they were to him) and it all went downhill. I want compromise, I want moderation... comments like "horses and bayonets" are NOT winning my independent vote.
This totally makes sense. (sarcasm)
"Just keep working out a compromise guys, even if the other side continually moves the goal posts regardless of how close you come to their side!"
Smart negotiations, lol. Have you met the Tea Party?
I want moderation, and more moderates as well, but there is a limited amount of things you can get done when the other side vehemently disagrees with everything you do, regardless of what it is. Your argument seems to hinge on people being better at agreeing, but both sides have to move for that to happen.
Manchu wrote: Neither Mitt Romney nor Paul Ryan will do anything to make the Republican Party more moderate.
They most assuredly will not. Paul Ryan is a tea party hero, what with turning medicare into a voucher system.
Y'know, I've gone on record here saying that while I'm voting for Obama, I'm not worried about a Romney administration. But I'm growing less fond of Romney the more I see him, just because -- as Madeline Albright offered -- there just doesn't seem to be a lot of substance to the guy.
I know, I know -- Obama hasn't exactly laid out his plan for the future either. But I'm familiar with Obama and feel like I have a sense of what another four years will feel like. And besides, I'm talking about Romney.
I've been comparing this election to 2004 for a while now, but Romney's strategies down the stretch seem a lot like Bush's in 2000. Namely, just "get skinny" and avoid creating sharp policy distinctions, spout some general platitudes, and then hope to get lucky on election day. More and more, Romney reminds me of Dubya, and that's troubling because I kinda had an impression Romney was a man of much more ability. I'm less convinced of that now.
That might turn a bad situation into a nightmare. Lebanon has a decent size christian pop there. Also a few in their gov't structure. Heck its a step closer to Isreal to.
And then once you answer that question, answer it again with the knowledge that any war that could possibly require the use of such a large military would be almost guaranteed to go nuclear, at which point the only forces that matter are the ICBMs.
Demonizing the other side never got anything done, imo.
Saint Reagan disagrees.
AustonT wrote: I thought I heard him say Syria was Iran's route to Lebanon, but I only caught snippets while doing errands.
Oh, the actual quote is much worse.
Secondly, Syria's an opportunity for us because Syria plays an important role in the Middle East, particularly right now. Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world. It's their route to the sea
I also like how he tried to sound savvy by calling Syria Iran's only Arab ally.
RiTides wrote: What happened to the positive man I voted for?
He has had to deal with hysterical, cynical, treacherous Congressional Republicans for four years, and especially in the last two. There's nothing "independent" about switching horses in the middle of the river.
This is not the middle of the river, Manchu... it's the end of a term, where I again choose who to vote for, and who not to.
Thinking about this today, I actually am not totally sure who I am voting for still... 60/40 to Romney atm, I guess... despite my post from last night. I just really like Obama, too...
Not that most people really care, probably . But, I really do try to consider these issues deeply, and especially which candidate would be best for the economy, and I honestly don't think anyone truly knows.
If we'd known the crisis/bubble was coming, we would've avoided it... and who knows what is coming next.
A little disappointed by the responses to my post, I'll be honest... but that's why I hardly ever venture in here, despite frequently discussing these issues in-person. But, I am an independent voter, and would like to think I reflect what a decent number of independents who are actually still considering both candidates are thinking. Unfortunately, that's not necessarily true... as most undecideds are simply not paying any attention / are making decisions off very little information, and didn't watch the debates, for instance.
Oh well, just figured I'd share my thoughts in here briefly, now to vacate OT for another year or so
RiTides wrote: What happened to the positive man I voted for?
He has had to deal with hysterical, cynical, treacherous Congressional Republicans for four years, and especially in the last two. There's nothing "independent" about switching horses in the middle of the river.
This is not the middle of the river, Manchu... it's the end of a term, where I again choose who to vote for, and who not to.
But in the political reality of the American Presidency this is the middle of the river. For a sitting president it is more of a review and not a new interview.
For me, it's a new interview... I wasn't all that happy with the second term of our last 2-term president! I'm not going to automatically vote for a candidate simply because I did 4 years ago... they have to earn my vote with the plans for what they will do, not only what they've done, etc. Although what they've done is obviously a big factor...
RiTides wrote: For me, it's a new interview... I wasn't all that happy with the second term of our last 2-term president! I'm not going to automatically vote for a candidate simply because I did 4 years ago... they have to earn my vote with the plans for what they will do, not only what they've done, etc. Although what they've done is obviously a big factor...
Recognizing that a political reality, like this being a mid point for a sitting President more than an end point, is nowhere near the same thing as advocating voting for a sitting President merely because he/she is the sitting President. An election with an incumbent isn't about electing two fresh faced fellows, but about deciding whether the incumbent keeps his job or is fired. President Obama already has the job, you are deciding whether he keeps it.
Obama has had to face the single worst economic fall out since the great depression.
It was just not possible to face that down and have the good times rolling again in 2 years, we are starting to see recovery now and I'm glad about that.
I fear Romney will return us to the same hi-jinks that got us there.
And it's not just about Romney or Obama, it's their parties and what they will bring, Romney brings with him a Republican party so far swung to the right and in the grips of the extremists in the Tea Party that wish to implement hard line social conservatism whilst touting the notion of 'personal freedoms'. They cry out about 'big government' getting into your healthcare but want that same government to decide on your rights to reproduce or who you marry in federal law. They wish to bring about a theocratic government that is against the principals of the founding fathers. They wish to erode and undermine scientific education and encourage individual selfishness as a virtue. All the time making the super rich richer and the average worker poorer and poorer.
I hope Obama gets voted into a second term, he's earned it.
RiTides wrote: What happened to the positive man I voted for?
He has had to deal with hysterical, cynical, treacherous Congressional Republicans for four years, and especially in the last two. There's nothing "independent" about switching horses in the middle of the river.
Manchu... the Obama and the House/Senate Democrats had both chambers in the first 2 years.
They flubbed it so bad, they lost their collective asses during the Midterm...
RiTides wrote: What happened to the positive man I voted for?
He has had to deal with hysterical, cynical, treacherous Congressional Republicans for four years, and especially in the last two. There's nothing "independent" about switching horses in the middle of the river.
Manchu... the Obama and the House/Senate Democrats had both chambers in the first 2 years.
They flubbed it so bad, they lost their collective asses during the Midterm...
horse gak.
They were faced with an economic disaster and the voting public were outraged they suddenly didn't wave a magic wand and fix it, coupled with the height of the 'he's a secret muslim communist nazi where's his birth certificate!!', so they voted in a group of Republicans who then set about blocking any and all actions to the detriment of the nation's well being.
RiTides wrote: What happened to the positive man I voted for?
He has had to deal with hysterical, cynical, treacherous Congressional Republicans for four years, and especially in the last two. There's nothing "independent" about switching horses in the middle of the river.
Manchu... the Obama and the House/Senate Democrats had both chambers in the first 2 years.
They flubbed it so bad, they lost their collective asses during the Midterm...
horse gak.
They were faced with an economic disaster and the voting public were outraged they suddenly didn't wave a magic wand and fix it, coupled with the height of the 'he's a secret muslim communist nazi where's his birth certificate!!', so they voted in a group of Republicans who then set about blocking any and all actions to the detriment of the nation's well being.
And I call horse gak on that...
You just denigrated those who voted out the Democrats... good job MGS!
Of course th Super Committe was a goat rope session. Either you (Ahtman or Dogma) posted their educational background and believe three of them actually had someting of an idea to them actually doing it. Rest was....fodder.
Curious when sequestion hits. Since Clinton geared the US military towards being able to fight two front wars are we still capable of maintaining that military strength or we going below ten divisions. Also as a side note. Bayonets are still heavily employed in all ground forces.
Romney was right on this one about GM. Why are we doing loans instead of garauntee's(sp) since economic class for was 20+ yrs ago...whats the difference
Drones. Yes Bush started it and it expanded under Obama. I'm for it and the Hellfire is to be replaced soon...think Javelin version
Why are we still dicking around with the keystone Pipeline.
I'm OT...on Vicaden, lunesta, antivan, and minipress......why does Manny HATE ME actually just kidding.
I hope Obama gets voted into a second term, he's earned it.
That and the shifts in the supreme court that could take place with a republican controlled presidency over the next four to eight years could spell anything between a decades long setback to a total deathblow for the progress of human rights and the equality of American citizens going forward.
Dream Act that...well some portions that went forward on Executive Orders. That irks me somewhat. How many executive acts did he end round on congress to get something to happen?
Jihadin wrote: Dream Act that...well some portions that went forward on Executive Orders. That irks me somewhat. How many executive acts did he end round on congress to get something to happen?
When Republican priority is to oust him, above and beyond repairing the country, what is he to do?
He had been offering the olive branch, asking to work together and instead received this:
These people are not fit to govern, they place partisan prejudice over the well being of the nation.
I didn't watch the video because I going to say he pretty much got slammed. There's always a middle ground to be found somewhere that both sides can agree to. Perception I have is no one wants to bipartisan it. Being an NCO I don't care but I learn to embrace the suck. It needs to get moved forward and hammered out. In a lock room...with water and blimpie sandwiches to sustain them. I even go crueler and give them MRE's till they come up with something. give it to us NCO and we have a workable plan within three days.
edit
watched the 8 secs. SO I wonder what drove the republicans to stance. Not much can be done now with two weeks left before election. If he wins a second term and its a republican house and senate how bad has Obama burnt those bridges.
Jihadin wrote: There's always a middle ground to be found somewhere that both sides can agree to.
Sure, there's always a middle ground that both sides could agree to. The problem is that one party is legitimately trying to govern the country, while the other party has openly admitted that making Obama a one-term president is the most important thing. Just look at stuff like the debt limit fight, it's an issue that both parties have always just quietly voted to eliminate every time it comes up, but suddenly once the republicans sensed Obama might be vulnerable on it they discover how serious an issue it is. And time after time the democrats tried to compromise, while the republican response was to reject the compromise and demand even more. In the end the country paid the price, while none of the republicans seemed to care.
So all three sides lack actual leaders. No one willing to go "Lead, follow or get the Hell out my way" to drive some issues. This is where my leaning towards everyone that holds a political office need to do a stint in the military.
Jihadin wrote: Dream Act that...well some portions that went forward on Executive Orders. That irks me somewhat. How many executive acts did he end round on congress to get something to happen?
Jihadin wrote: Dream Act that...well some portions that went forward on Executive Orders. That irks me somewhat. How many executive acts did he end round on congress to get something to happen?
Less per 4 years than any previous president.
He signed something like 120 EO...
Which I find funny but as Senator, he campaigned against using EOs...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: So all three sides lack actual leaders. No one willing to go "Lead, follow or get the Hell out my way" to drive some issues. This is where my leaning towards everyone that holds a political office need to do a stint in the military.
I'd go with that... problem is... you'd have to Amend the Constitution to enable that requirement. Not easy... (for a good reason)
Jihadin wrote: So all three sides lack actual leaders. No one willing to go "Lead, follow or get the Hell out my way" to drive some issues. This is where my leaning towards everyone that holds a political office need to do a stint in the military.
Jihadin wrote: So all three sides lack actual leaders. No one willing to go "Lead, follow or get the Hell out my way" to drive some issues. This is where my leaning towards everyone that holds a political office need to do a stint in the military.
The military in this country is under civilian leadership. I'd greatly prefer if we could stop being the world's largest exporter of war, and start, as the founding fathers wished, return to being a country that does not seek out monsters to destroy.
That being said, the benefits of a military background as far as presidential efficiency are tenuous at best. Some of of greatest presidents were military men, and some of our very worst were also.
Jihadin wrote: Also as a side note. Bayonets are still heavily employed in all ground forces.
Due to drops in Budgeting we decided to just get rid of that whole "gun concept" and just stick with the Bayonets(get it? "stick", I'm such a funny person)
Jihadin wrote: Dream Act that...well some portions that went forward on Executive Orders. That irks me somewhat. How many executive acts did he end round on congress to get something to happen?
Less per 4 years than any previous president.
He signed something like 120 EO...
Which I find funny but as Senator, he campaigned against using EOs...
But he signed less than previous presidents (at least back until Reagan) per term, which is funny considering that people love to paint him as the "EO President".
Jihadin wrote: Dream Act that...well some portions that went forward on Executive Orders. That irks me somewhat. How many executive acts did he end round on congress to get something to happen?
Less per 4 years than any previous president.
He signed something like 120 EO...
Which I find funny but as Senator, he campaigned against using EOs...
But he signed less than previous presidents (at least back until Reagan) per term, which is funny considering that people love to paint him as the "EO President".
Jihadin wrote: Obamacare/ACA that was rammed through both senate and house that was democratic control did pissed quite a few people off.
You are repeating a lie. "Ramming it through" is such a preposterous mischaracterization that it's deeply sad that real and honest people, rather than just dishonest politicians, are still repeating it in any sense other than to point out how dishonest politics can be.
They spent a YEAR on it. A year of courting Republican votes and working from a perspective of "we MUST do this in a bipartisan way". We elected the candidate who told us repeatedly (and won the debates doing it) that he would try to give us a public option. The Dems immediately abandoned that concept as a big gesture of bipartisanship, and adopted a Republican-created plan instead. The exact same kind of plan that a Republican executive had passed with a Democratic-controlled legislative body (Romney and the MA House). \
The Republican party in 2009 immediately decided that beating Obama and foiling his agenda (the agenda he publicly promised and the majority of Americans voted for) was far higher priority than fixing our broken healthcare system. They didn't give a damn that it was all Republican-based ideas. They didn't give a damn that the public option had been taken off the table specifically as a BIG step across the aisle to them. They wanted political advantage, and they made up lies about death panels, and scared seniors into screaming at town halls. They're still lying. Romney's got the gall to criticize Obama for allegedly cutting $716B from the Medicare budget, when in fact those EXACT cost-saving measures were and are part of the Ryan budget as well.
Obama and the Dems spent a year trying to reach across the aisle and getting slapped for it. If they HAD rammed it through, we could have had a healthcare bill in Spring of 2009. Not Spring of 2010.
Manchu wrote: Meanwhile, how does anyone think Mitt Romney will really be able to work with Democrats? I mean, the onus has been on Democrats to work with Republicans for the last four years, with Republicans constantly moving the goal posts on what they're willing to talk about. Now Romney says he will reach out to Democrats because he was able to do so in Massachusetts? I don't think so, Mitt. This whole election has been a complete repudiation of those days. Choosing Paul Ryan as a running mate is a very clear signal that Romney has zero plans to work with Democrats in anything but the our-war-or-the-highway approach of Ryan and the rest of the Tea Party.
I have no clue, because I have absolutely no idea what Romney plans on doing once he reaches the White House.
For all I know he could be a do nothing moderate, who focuses on matters of basic governance while watching the economy move through its predicted steady recovery. Or he could be a hardline trickle down economic reformer. I mean he's said plenty of stuff that indicate either, depending on who he was trying to appeal to at the time.
Romney really is the mystery box of this election. Do you take Obama, or do you take what's in the Romney mystery box.
Jihadin wrote: Obamacare/ACA that was rammed through both senate and house that was democratic control did pissed quite a few people off.
You are repeating a lie. "Ramming it through" is such a preposterous mischaracterization that it's deeply sad that real and honest people, rather than just dishonest politicians, are still repeating it in any sense other than to point out how dishonest politics can be.
They spent a YEAR on it. A year of courting Republican votes and working from a perspective of "we MUST do this in a bipartisan way". We elected the candidate who told us repeatedly (and won the debates doing it) that he would try to give us a public option. The Dems immediately abandoned that concept as a big gesture of bipartisanship, and adopted a Republican-created plan instead. The exact same kind of plan that a Republican executive had passed with a Democratic-controlled legislative body (Romney and the MA House). \
The Republican party in 2009 immediately decided that beating Obama and foiling his agenda (the agenda he publicly promised and the majority of Americans voted for) was far higher priority than fixing our broken healthcare system. They didn't give a damn that it was all Republican-based ideas. They didn't give a damn that the public option had been taken off the table specifically as a BIG step across the aisle to them. They wanted political advantage, and they made up lies about death panels, and scared seniors into screaming at town halls. They're still lying. Romney's got the gall to criticize Obama for allegedly cutting $716B from the Medicare budget, when in fact those EXACT cost-saving measures were and are part of the Ryan budget as well.
Obama and the Dems spent a year trying to reach across the aisle and getting slapped for it. If they HAD rammed it through, we could have had a healthcare bill in Spring of 2009. Not Spring of 2010.
Ragnar... I disagree with this:
Obama and the Dems spent a year trying to reach across the aisle and getting slapped for it. If they HAD rammed it through, we could have had a healthcare bill in Spring of 2009. Not Spring of 2010.
There was not a "true" attempt to make this bipartisan... in fact, they didn't need to as they had carte blanche.
And this is just wrong:
Romney's got the gall to criticize Obama for allegedly cutting $716B from the Medicare budget, when in fact those EXACT cost-saving measures were and are part of the Ryan budget as well.
Ryan's plan is NOT Romney's plan...
But, if you want to bring in Wyden-Ryan plan, that Medicare cut is the same, but the mechanism to achieve those cuts are drastically different.
ACA bill achieves that via a panel of 15 unelected government officials, called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (aka... da deth panel ), to make changes to the Medicare program that will reduce Medicare spending: primarily paying doctors and hospitals less, as is done with the Medicaid program.
The Wyden-Ryan plan preserves the ACA health bill's targets for future Medicare spending, but employs an entirely different mechanism: premium support and competitive bidding. Seniors would enjoy exactly the same benefits that they do now, but along with the traditional Medicare program, they would enjoy the option of choosing among a selection of government-approved private insurance plans.
But, again... we're not facing Ryan's plan.... a cursory look at Mitt's Medicare plan is:
- Nothing changes for current seniors or those nearing retirement
-Medicare is reformed as a premium support system, meaning that existing spending is repackaged as a fixed-amount benefit to each senior that he or she can use to purchase an insurance plan
-All insurance plans must offer coverage at least comparable to what Medicare provides today
-If seniors choose more expensive plans, they will have to pay the difference between the support amount and the premium price; if they choose less expensive plans, they can use any leftover support to pay other medical expenses like co-pays and deductibles
-“Traditional” fee-for-service Medicare will be offered by the government as an insurance plan, meaning that seniors can purchase that form of coverage if they prefer it; however, if it costs the government more to provide that service than it costs private plans to offer their versions, then the premiums charged by the government will have to be higher and seniors will have to pay the difference to enroll in the traditional Medicare option
-Lower income seniors will receive more generous support to ensure that they can afford coverage; wealthier seniors will receive less support
-Competition among plans to provide high quality service while charging low premiums will hold costs down while also improving the quality of coverage enjoyed by seniors
And people say he doesn't 'have a plan'...
So... if you want to talk about the current law... the ACA bill is gak. It was touted as the solution to ensure coverage for everyone AND to reduce cost. I've been reading up on the bill itself (and its a beast) and there are only two things I really like:
1) Can't be denied due to pre-existing condition
2) Insurances cant use a "lifetime cap" anymore
Here's the are the crappy things s that are in this bill, spoiler'ed due to wall-o-text:
Spoiler:
OBAMACARE FACT #1: BREASTFEEDING: All employers must now provide a “reasonable break time” and a “private place other than a bathroom” for employees to express breast milk for at least one year after childbirth. Employers with fewer than 50 employees “may” be exempt if they can demonstrate compliance would result in an “undue hardship.” [Section 4207, Affordable Care Act].
Other than a bathroom? So a special breast feeding lounge or something? I have absolutely nothing against breast feeding (quite the contrary), but this is a regulation that the federal government needed to impose on business owners in this economy? Really?
In addition,in defining the “essential health benefits package” that all health insurance policies must offer (under section 1302 of the Act), the Department of Health & Human Services has issued regulations requiring free coverage of breastfeeding supplies and counseling.
OBAMACARE FACT #2: TRAINING HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS FOR “DIVERSITY”: There is BIG money in Obamacare for all things relating to “diversity,” which is crudely defined as “individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds.” For example, section 5402–titled “Health Care Professionals Training for Diversity”– appropriates hundreds of millions of dollars to provide and expand scholarships and pay back student loans. Specifically, 5402 provides:
(1) An additional $25 million for paying back the student loans of “disadvantaged background” students– up to $30,000 per year– if they become faculty at a health profession school (nursing; medical schools; PA schools, etc.). The Secretary of HHS may also make grants/enter into contracts with such health profession schools to help subsidize the salaries of hiring such “disadvantaged background” students as faculty.
(2) About $250 million for scholarships to “disadvantaged background” students attending health profession schools ($51 million for fiscal year 2010 and “such sums as may be necessary” for the next 4 years).
(3) About $300 million for scholarships to “disadvantaged background” students who attend health profession schools and then agree to provide service in an “unserved or underserved population” area after graduation ($60 million for fiscal year 2010 and “such sums as may be necessary” for the next 4 years).
The grand total for these 3 items alone = $ 575 million over a 5 year period. Breathtaking boondoggle.
OBAMACARE FACT #3: Under section 4203 of the Affordable Care Act, all medical diagnostic equipment used by physicians, hospitals and other health care providers–e.g., ex-rays, exam tables, exam chairs, mammography equipment, MRIs, etc.– must be equipment that is “accessible to, and usable by, individuals with accessibility needs, and shall allow independent entry to, use of, and exit from the equipment by such individuals to the maximum extent possible.”
While I think we can all agree that this is a nice goal, is it really appropriate to mandate this, in this economy, regardless of its cost? Price tag: Unknown.
OBAMACARE FACT #4: $1.25 billion– yes, that’s “billion” with a “b”– for “centers of excellence for depression.“ [section 10410 of the Affordable Care Act] These centers will engage in research and treatment of depression.
Wow– really? $1.25 BILLION to universities and other entities to do something–treat and conduct research on depression–that they already have every incentive in the world to do? Indeed, there’s already a National Network of Depression Centers (NNDC)–consisting of 21 large institutions–that has functionally being doing this type of work since 2007.
What a boondoggle. Makes me depressed. Think I can get a grant?
Good to know my tax dollars aren’t being squandered in these tough economic times.
OBAMACARE FACT #5: Section 8002 of Obamacare created the CLASS (Community Living Assistance Services & Supports) Program. CLASS was supposed to be a government-sponsored, voluntary long-term care insurance program funded via payroll deductions (with subsidies for low-income enrollees). Enrollees were required to pay into the CLASS insurance for 5 years– a “vesting” period– before they could draw any benefits.
Because of its long vesting period (during which time premiums were collected but benefits not paid out), CLASS was scored as “saving” taxpayers $80 billion– which was more than half of Obamacare’s supposed $143 billion in budgetary “savings.”
Guess what? In October 2011, the Obama Administration admitted what most smart folks had known all along: That the CLASS program was fiscally unsustainable and unworkable. Only sick people with expensive long-term care needs wanted to enroll and pay its hefty premiums. HHS Secretary Sebelius admitted, ““Despite our best analytical efforts, I do not see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time.”
Epic fail.
So... for something that was touted to fundamentally change our Healthcare in order to ensure access to insurances and to reduce cost... it's already an epic failure.
Recently, a survey was done that shown 1 in 10 businesses will drop their company's health insurance benefits and pay the tax because it incenticize employers to reduce their labor cost. There are economist and businesses are saying that's the best case scenario and it may be upwards to 30%. Especially in this economy, businesses WILL continue to reduce cost, even if it means they'll drop their emplorer provided benefit package. Out of anything else I posted... this point I believe is what resonated with those who objects the current Healthcare law.
During the 2008 US presidential election, then candidate Barack Obama (US Senator, D-IL) campaigned for the need to reform the American health care system, stating that the cost of health care was a "threat to our economy" and that health care should be a "right for every American." After assuming office in Nov. 2008, President Obama urged Congress to pass health care reform in weekly addresses, speeches, a nationally televised address to a joint session of Congress on Sep. 9, 2009, and his State of the Union addresses in 2009 and 2010.
Republican and Democrat congressional representatives introduced 133 health care and related bills during the 111th session of Congress (Jan. 2009 - Dec. 2009). Many Democrats supported measures such as the public option and individual mandate, while many Republicans opposed increasing government spending and control on health care. On Nov. 7, 2009 the House Democrats garnered a vote of 220-215 to approve the Affordable Health Care for America Act (HR 3962). Only one Republican, Anh Cao (R-LA), voted for the bill, and 39 Democrats voted against it. The bill was estimated to cost $1.1 trillion, provide coverage for 36 million uninsured Americans, and create a government health insurance program. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the bill would reduce the federal deficit by $118 billion over 2010-2019.
On Dec. 24, 2009 the Senate approved similar health care reform legislation called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HR 3590), in a 60-39 party-line vote. HR 3590 began as the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009, a bill passed by the House on Oct. 8 that modified the homebuyers credit for members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees. In a procedural move, the Senate co-opted HR 3590, removed all existing language, and replaced it with the language of their health care bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. No Republican Senator voted for the bill. Some Republicans argued that the bill was unconstitutional, socialistic, too costly, and would increase health insurance costs for those who are already insured. This bill was estimated to cost $871 billion over 10 years, would require most Americans to have health insurance, and would extend coverage to 31 million uninsured Americans. The CBO estimated that the bill would reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over 2010-2019.
Negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate bills stalled in Congress after Scott Brown (R-MA) won late Ted Kennedy's (D-MA) vacant Senate seat in Jan. 2010, causing Senate Democrats to lose their Republican filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats. On Feb. 22, 2010 President Obama unveiled his own proposal bridging the Senate and House health care bills, placing pressure on the House to pass health care reform legislation. House Democrats advanced the their amendments to HR 3590 as a new budget reconciliation bill, which is a form of legislation that requires only a simple majority and not a supermajority of 60 votes in the Senate to be approved.
Democrat congressional representatives walk into Capitol Hill to vote on health care reform bill HR 3590.
Source: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images, www.nytimes.com, Mar. 1, 2010
On Mar. 21, 2010 the House approved the Senate's bill (HR 3590) in a 219-212 vote and passed the House's amendments to HR 3590 as the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HR 4872) in a 220-211 vote. The Reconciliation Act made financing and revenue changes to HR 3590, while modifying higher education assistance financing. No Republican in the House voted for either HR 3590 or the reconciliation bill.
President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HR 3590) (2.2 MB) into law on Mar. 23, 2010. This law was the main piece of legislation reforming the US health care system. The 906 page act was touted to increase health care coverage to include 32 million previously uninsured Americans. Under the new law, 95% of Americans will be insured, according to the White House website's "Putting Americans in Control of Their Health Care" page (accessed Mar. 29, 2010).
President Obama issued Executive Order 13535 (90 KB) on Mar. 24, 2010, to ensure that federal funds would not be used for abortion services, consistent with the Hyde Amendment (1.3 MB) , as he had promised anti-abortion Democrats.
On Mar. 25, 2010 the Senate approved the Reconciliation Act with amendments in a 56-43 vote, and the House approved the Senate's amended version of the act in a 220-207 vote. The Reconciliation Act (HR 4872) (283 KB) was signed into law by President Obama on Mar. 30, 2010 to make health-related financing and revenue changes to HR 3590 and to modify higher education assistance provisions.The CBO estimated that HR 3590 with the Reconciliation Act would reduce the federal deficit by $143 billion over 2010-2019, provide coverage for 32 million previously uninsured Americans, and require more Americans to have health insurance. The CBO's deficit reduction calculation has been disputed; some independent calcuations conclude the bills would raise the deficit by over $500 billion over the next 10 years.
The Patient's Bill of Rights (181 KB) , a summary of regulations issued by the US Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor, and Treasury, to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, was released by the White House on June 22, 2010.
On Jan. 5, 2011 the new Republican-majority US House of Representatives introduced The Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act (HR 2) (144 KB) to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. On Jan. 19, 2011, the US House of Representatives passed the bill in a 245-189 vote. On Feb. 2, 2011, in a 51-47 party-line vote, the US Senate rejected The Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act.
whembly wrote: There was not a "true" attempt to make this bipartisan... in fact, they didn't need to as they had carte blanche.
"They didn't need to" is not the same thing as "they didn't try". For instance, for the invasion of Iraq Bush didn't need the support of any allies, as the US military was more than capable of undertaking the attack by itself. But you'd be a nut to pretend there wasn't a lot of effort made to bring in other countries, with wildly varying levels of success.
There was a large number of outreaches made, at first to the Republicans as a whole, then to specific more moderate Republicans, and finally again to those more moderate Republicans as a possible way of stepping around the Blue Dogs that were threatening to stop the process.
But, if you want to bring in Wyden-Ryan plan, that Medicare cut is the same, but the mechanism to achieve those cuts are drastically different.
No, the $700 billion medicare cut is related to specific cost savings initiatives. You go on to describe the general mechanisms of each bill, not the specific cost savings measures that plan to make $700 billion in savings.
The $700 billion figure is actually about one third no longer overpaying on Medicare advantage, one third reduced hospital payments (which the hospitals have agreed to, knowing the large decrease in paying customer due to ACA's insurance coverage expansion will more than make up the shortfall), and one third for a bunch of minor changes, like no longer needing as much funding for hospitals who see more uninsured patients.
Every single one of those policies is kept within Ryan's budget. Every one.
The Wyden-Ryan plan preserves the ACA health bill's targets for future Medicare spending, but employs an entirely different mechanism: premium support and competitive bidding. Seniors would enjoy exactly the same benefits that they do now, but along with the traditional Medicare program, they would enjoy the option of choosing among a selection of government-approved private insurance plans.
And given medicare advantage presently pays out premiums at about 117% of what it'd cost to directly provide coverage... then a scheme that thinks it'll solve healthcare with an expanded medicare advantage model is just nutty.
-Medicare is reformed as a premium support system, meaning that existing spending is repackaged as a fixed-amount benefit to each senior that he or she can use to purchase an insurance plan
Vouchers! Because Medicare Advantage isn't wasting enough money!
The Wyden-Ryan plan preserves the ACA health bill's targets for future Medicare spending, but employs an entirely different mechanism: premium support and competitive bidding. Seniors would enjoy exactly the same benefits that they do now, but along with the traditional Medicare program, they would enjoy the option of choosing among a selection of government-approved private insurance plans.
It would be impossible for such a plan to result in cost reduction without also reducing benefits. Impossible.
-If seniors choose more expensive plans, they will have to pay the difference between the support amount and the premium price; if they choose less expensive plans, they can use any leftover support to pay other medical expenses like co-pays and deductibles
Which they will, because good luck finding a reasonable insurance policy that will be fully funded by Medicare outlays.
The biggest advantage of Medicare is that it isn't based on market pricing, and is therefore accessible to all regardless of age (beyond eligibility of course) or infirmity. Taking steps to render such care only according to something like...
-“Traditional” fee-for-service Medicare will be offered by the government as an insurance plan, meaning that seniors can purchase that form of coverage if they prefer it; however, if it costs the government more to provide that service than it costs private plans to offer their versions, then the premiums charged by the government will have to be higher and seniors will have to pay the difference to enroll in the traditional Medicare option
...completely compromises the policy basis on which Medicare is founded. It will force people who would be considered liabilities by for-profit insurance companies to pay higher costs by way of the government plan, which will cost more because of an inability to exclude people. Sure, you can subsidize low-income seniors, but what about people that aren't low-income, can't qualify for a private plan, or afford the government plan?
Recently, a survey was done that shown 1 in 10 businesses will drop their company's health insurance benefits and pay the tax because it incenticize employers to reduce their labor cost. There are economist and businesses are saying that's the best case scenario and it may be upwards to 30%. Especially in this economy, businesses WILL continue to reduce cost, even if it means they'll drop their emplorer provided benefit package. Out of anything else I posted... this point I believe is what resonated with those who objects the current Healthcare law.
I object to ACA, but I also recognize that its basically the Republican friendly version of a single payer system.
The best part of the debate was hearing Ryan fluster the next day about the whole "bayonets and horses" deal, trying to make some vague and nebulous point about how "we have the least amount of ships since the first world war but the ocean isn't getting any smaller".
Jihadin wrote: Of course th Super Committe was a goat rope session. Either you (Ahtman or Dogma) posted their educational background and believe three of them actually had someting of an idea to them actually doing it. Rest was....fodder.
Senate Democrats
Patty Murray (Co-Chair)- Physical Education
Max Baucus- Economics and Law
John Kerry-Political Science and Law
Senate Republicans
Jon Kyl -"undergraduate degree" and Law
Rob Portman- Anthropology and Law
Pat Toomey- Government
House Democrats
Xavier Becerra- Economics and Law
Jim Clyburn- History
Chris Van Hollen- Philosphy and Public Policy
House Republicans
Jeb Hensarling (Co-Chair)-Economics and Law
Fred Upton-Journalism
Dave Camp- "Bachelor's degree" and Law
You all know the bayonet is still heavily used right? Wait....since "The Chosen One" said it went the way of the horses it must be true. You believers are funny. It still an issue item
President Obama made bayonets sound like buggy whips at Monday’s presidential debate, but the fact is they’re still standard issue for Marines.
The knives, which fit on the end of a rifle barrel and have been around since the 17th century, are not just there for when the ammo runs out and the enemy is close. According to the U.S. Army, the M9 bayonet serves as “a hand weapon, as a general field and utility knife, as well as a wire cutter together with its scabbard, and as a saw.”
Obama brought up bayonets by way of chiding Mitt Romney for calling proposed military cuts devastating.
"You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916,” Obama said. “Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed."
“The bayonet is still very much a useful tool. That was kind of a dumb thing for him to say."
- Former U.S. Marine Doug Miller, of Hiawatha, Kan.
“The bayonet is still very much a useful tool," former U.S. Marine Doug Miller, of Hiawatha, Kan., told FoxNews.com. "That was kind of a dumb thing for him to say."
Miller, 64, a Vietnam veteran who served in the 3rd Battalion, 11th Marines Division, said the bayonet is indispensable for Marines in urban warfare, where they may have to go room to room in search of insurgents.
"You can't always swing the rifle into position, especially in close quarters," Miller said. "That bayonet could save your life."
The M9 bayonet and others in the series have been manufactured for the military by several companies, including Buck Knives and the Ontario Knife Co. The weapon attaches to the M16 rifle’s M4 carbine. It also can be used with the Mossberg 590 Special Purpose shotgun.
"Bottom line: The bayonet remains part of the individual Marine equipment issue and Marines are trained to use it," retired Maj. Gen. Ed Usher, president and CEO of the Marine Corps Association & Foundation, told FoxNews.com.
But Marines carry bayonets in the field, and all must complete training with the hand-to-hand combat staple. The Army’s infantrymen also have long used bayonets, though that branch has scaled back on bayonet drills in recent years. Although the last U.S. bayonet charge was in Korea in 1951, a British soldier was recently honored for leading a bayonet charge against the Taliban in 2011 in Afghanistan.
The official Marine.com website touts the bayonet with the words: “From 500 yards, every Marine is accurate with a rifle. Attach the OKC-3S Bayonet, and the weapon becomes just as effective in close combat situations. Also a Marine's multi-purpose fighting knife, the OKC-3S is the weapon of choice when shots can't be fired. Every Marine receives bayonet training in the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (MCMAP) and on the Bayonet Assault Course in Recruit Training.”
Ontario Knife's version of the M9 bayonet, the OKC3S, is 13.25 inches long, with a serrated blade of hardened steel, a zinc phosphate non-reflective finish and an ergonomically grooved handle made of a low-noise polyester elastomer. It clicks onto the rifle via fitted internal stainless steel springs, and comes with a "Molle-compatible sheath designed for superior stealth."
“We take pride in our military products and it’s an honor and privilege to supply these weapons/tools to the US military,” said Ken Trbovich, president and CEO of Ontario Knife Co., told FoxNews.com in a statement. “The military deploys our products for a wide range of combat and field operations. These include, but are not limited to, breaching devices, rescue tools and combat weapons.”
The place of bayonets in history is assured. When all the bullets were fired, the deadly blades turned rifles into spears in the Civil War and World War I, when fighting rages from trench to trench at close range. Veterans also have been known to reminisce about using the versatile blade to toast bread, open cans, scrape mud off of boots and even dig latrines.
In the current edition of the Marine Corps Gazette, an article titled "‘Fix . . . Bayonets!’ Spanning the spectrum of lethality" by retired USMC Col. Michael Belcher praises the utility of bayonets throughout history and today.
"In counterinsurgency operations as in combat, the bayonet has proven itself to be an effective offensive and defensive weapon, one that produces kinetic and nonkinetic effects well beyond its size and across the spectrum of conflict," Belcher wrote.
Obama said. “Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed."
We've same amount of bayonets and the same amount of horses. Granted horse cavalry is no longer around and the only unit that uses horses are the Old Guard for military funeral.
Kanluwen wrote: The best part of the debate was hearing Ryan fluster the next day about the whole "bayonets and horses" deal, trying to make some vague and nebulous point about how "we have the least amount of ships since the first world war but the ocean isn't getting any smaller".
I know I mentioned it, but that comment really turned me off, as an independent... I'm not looking for word games or who has the best "zinger" to make up my (at least still somewhat undecided) vote. I'm looking for sincerity... the snark was really not appreciated, by either candidate, but especially Obama in this last debate.
Obama said. “Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed."
We've same amount of bayonets and the same amount of horses. Granted horse cavalry is no longer around and the only unit that uses horses are the Old Guard for military funeral.
We have the same amount of horses that we had in WW2, WW1, Civil War?
We had over 4,000,000 soldiers in WW1, we have less than 2,000,000 soldiers now. Are we keeping 2,000,000+ bayonets in storage somewhere just in case every soldier needs a couple of spares?
Tibbsy wrote: The meaning I got from the comment was that there's a big difference between these:
And these:
Because you probably don't have many of the former, but you still use the latter. I think Obama was make the point that the former is no longer used.
EDIT: Fixed image
You must have missed the 1916 part, don't worry I'll help.
Let's also pretend D-USA tha he was referring to the actual number of horse and bayonets. He was attempting to imply these were absent or nearly absent or obsolete. While US troops don't seem particularly fond of the bayonet charge in the 21st century the Brits have no such aversion. Barry even made little hand motions so we would know what a plane looks like landing on these magical ships at sea. There's a pretty big difference between USS Langley and USS Ronald Reagan. Both aircraft carriers and submarines predate both candidates, to me it just made Barry look like a snide child. I don't expect Romney to fire back with a deep knowledge of the Navy, but Barry shouldn't pretend he is any better.
d-usa wrote: They could have rammed through a bill with a public option in the first month.
Instead they worked with the Republicans, who didn't want to work with them.
That makes them non-bi-partisan?
And we wonder why our policital system is broken...
They could have, yes, but they wanted at least some Republicans on board with whatever legislation they wrote so that they'd have some political cover for doing something the majority of the American people, according to polling at the time, were strongly against.
To those with the gall to actually post here that we still use horses and bayonets in the military. The point raised by the president was that we no longer need a vast fleet of warships, that aircraft and aircraft carriers changed the entire course of naval warfare in the second half of WW2 and that large fleets have not been relevant since.
With all the beatings that Romney has taken for goofy things he's said I think Barack can spend a little time in the barrel.
Besides, if you look at some of our strategic rivals they're still building ships. It's not crazy to think that larger fleets could become relevant again.
Jihadin wrote:Why and what was the reason the republicans would not work for the democrats.
Jihadin wrote:You all know the bayonet is still heavily used right? Wait....since "The Chosen One" said it went the way of the horses it must be true. You believers are funny. It still an issue item
Monster Rain wrote: Besides, if you look at some of our strategic rivals they're still building ships. It's not crazy to think that larger fleets could become relevant again.
Of course it's crazy.
1) Even if we cut the navy in half we'd still have a bigger fleet than any plausible opponent, and there's no sign that any of those rivals are planning on duplicating our insanity of running up the debt to build a navy capable of taking on the entire rest of the world simultaneously.
2) It's incredibly difficult to imagine a plausible scenario where there are large scale naval battles without the war going nuclear, at which point fleet size is irrelevant.
(Of course I'd be more tempted to vote for Romney if he DID support building a fleet of modern battleships, because that would be awesome.)
Peregrine wrote: 2) It's incredibly difficult to imagine a plausible scenario where there are large scale naval battles without the war going nuclear, at which point fleet size is irrelevant.
I've seen you throw this idea around before, as though it were based on any kind of fact.
2) It's incredibly difficult to imagine a plausible scenario where there are large scale naval battles without the war going nuclear, at which point fleet size is irrelevant.
Well, maybe difficult for you.
Lets say the US and China clash over Taiwan. The US deploys carrier group or two, and the Chinese deploy their own naval assets in order to supplement their land-based airforce.
Why would the Chinese deploy nuclear weapons against the US? Why would the US deploy nuclear weapons against the Chinese?
This scenario took me less than 5 minutes to devise.
dogma wrote: Why would the Chinese deploy nuclear weapons against the US?
Nuclear anti-ship missiles are a good way of removing pesky carrier groups.
Why would the US deploy nuclear weapons against the Chinese?
Because when China sinks a carrier or three (even if the US wins the battle they're going to pay for it) everyone back home will be screaming for revenge, the US escalates with a counter-attack on China, and eventually someone pushes too far and the world ends.
Of course here's your real problem:
Lets say the US and China clash over Taiwan.
Which simply isn't going to happen. Neither country wants a war over it when the current situation is acceptable, China isn't stupid enough to commit economic suicide and start a war with a major trading partner, while the US probably isn't going to defend Taiwan to the death if the alternative is a full-scale war with China (just like Russia isn't going to start WWIII over it if we invade Iran).
MeanGreenStompa wrote:To those with the gall to actually post here that we still use horses and bayonets in the military.
I consider the fact that I'm not posting a string of well deserved personal insults a mitzvah.
The point raised by the president was that we no longer need a vast fleet of warships, that aircraft and aircraft carriers changed the entire course of naval warfare in the second half of WW2 and that large fleets have not been relevant since.
Yeah someone should go tell all those other ships to retire cause we are only need aircraft carriers!
Or maybe in the half century since WW2 it's been painfully obvious that a large fleet is necessary to a nation straddling two oceans on a planet with more water than land.
Also known as "Dur"
Also, stop being pedants.
And it's back
@matty
Spoiler:
stupid Brits with their horses and bayonet charges. Where do find the gall?
AustonT wrote: Or maybe in the half century since WW2 it's been painfully obvious that a large fleet is necessary to a nation straddling two oceans on a planet with more water than land.
Only if you insist on having a military capable of fighting multiple simultaneous foreign wars. If, instead, your goal is to defend yourself, it's hard to argue that ANY navy ships that don't carry nuclear weapons are even remotely useful.
TBH, I don't see the big problem with the size of their military. Their army is plenty big enough to deal with any of the smaller countries, if they have to take on two or more small countries they can just remind Europe that they have more nukes than us and we'll happily join them, and if they take on a country with a large military, chances are it'll all be about the nukes anyway. In fact, the only reason I can see for enlarging the military is the extra jobs it would create, and there are probably more cost-effective ways of doing that than via spending more on the military, which would probably go largely to equipment and vehicles.
AustonT wrote: Or maybe in the half century since WW2 it's been painfully obvious that a large fleet is necessary to a nation straddling two oceans on a planet with more water than land.
it's hard to argue that ANY navy ships that don't carry nuclear weapons are even remotely useful.
I'd love to hear your explanation for how the navy does anything to prevent an attack on the US, especially given that nobody else has a navy capable of getting across those oceans to attack us.
AustonT wrote: Or maybe in the half century since WW2 it's been painfully obvious that a large fleet is necessary to a nation straddling two oceans on a planet with more water than land.
it's hard to argue that ANY navy ships that don't carry nuclear weapons are even remotely useful.
This is why I ignore 90% of your posts
Hey, I am sure all our ships that are always shooting cruise missiles at targets are all using nuclear warheads.
They are useful, that's not to say that we need many of them though. We need some to take on the navies of any small nations that decide that communism's right after all, or that Israel shouldn't exist, and we need some to transport our troops to such countries, but other than this they aren't necessary.
I'd love to hear your explanation for how the navy does anything to prevent an attack on the US, especially given that nobody else has a navy capable of getting across those oceans to attack us.
Provide logistical and military support to boots on the ground in areas where we are fighting?
I might think that our military is bloated and large and can be cut and made more efficient. But I don't think they are useless.
p_gray99 wrote: They are useful, that's not to say that we need many of them though. We need some to take on the navies of any small nations that decide that communism's right after all
And what exactly are they going to DO about it? Send their one aircraft carrier over to attack us and get it turned into an expensive wreck by land-based missiles?
or that Israel shouldn't exist
Why is it our job to protect Israel? If they want to continue existing they can spend THEIR money on a military to defend themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Provide logistical and military support to boots on the ground in areas where we are fighting?
Read the entire post, not just the part he quoted. Obviously the navy is useful if you're fighting foreign wars, what I said was that outside of those foreign wars the navy is useless. Maintaining a huge navy doesn't do anything to help our own security, it just gives us the ability to kill people elsewhere in the world more efficiently.
p_gray99 wrote: They are useful, that's not to say that we need many of them though. We need some to take on the navies of any small nations that decide that communism's right after all
And what exactly are they going to DO about it? Send their one aircraft carrier over to attack us and get it turned into an expensive wreck by land-based missiles?
or that Israel shouldn't exist
Why is it our job to protect Israel? If they want to continue existing they can spend THEIR money on a military to defend themselves.
*sigh*
What I mean is that if we do need to go to war with any nation that we're not going to just nuke to smithereens, we need a navy to do it with. Otherwise, you're left with plenty of troops sitting in america with no way of getting out and fighting.
p_gray99 wrote: What I mean is that if we do need to go to war with any nation that we're not going to just nuke to smithereens, we need a navy to do it with. Otherwise, you're left with plenty of troops sitting in america with no way of getting out and fighting.
Good. Then we can cut most of those troops and save even more money.
p_gray99 wrote: And sit idly by while our enemies develop nukes. Good idea, let's do it!
And the alternative is what exactly? Invade Iran and make Iraq look like a flawless and sensible plan while pushing the debt to even more obscene levels? Or, I know, we could use our air force to launch an attack from bases in the US and bomb the nuke sites even more efficiently than we could do it with the navy. Or we could just spend half the money we spend on the navy on a full-scale ABM system and laugh at anyone who thinks that building a few nukes means they can martyr themselves for the cause and destroy the great satan.
RiTides wrote: What happened to the positive man I voted for?
He has had to deal with hysterical, cynical, treacherous Congressional Republicans for four years, and especially in the last two. There's nothing "independent" about switching horses in the middle of the river.
This is not the middle of the river, Manchu... it's the end of a term, where I again choose who to vote for, and who not to.
Unfortunately, our economy doesn't really work on 4-year cycles. Looking back, you see a lot of very similar economic policy between 1989 and 2008. I'm not saying Presient Obama has totally broken the mold but Romney is explicitly committed to pre-crash policies -- we might as well call them pro-crash policies. We are most definitely in the middle of the river, RiTides.
given that nobody else has a navy capable of getting across those oceans to attack us.
Lets start here.
Yes, lets. Could you state exactly which countries have a navy capable of launching an effective attack against ground-based defenses AND transporting enough invasion troops to do anything remotely useful AND prevent those troop ships from being sunk by ground-based defenses.
p_gray99 wrote: And sit idly by while our enemies develop nukes. Good idea, let's do it!
And the alternative is what exactly? Invade Iran and make Iraq look like a flawless and sensible plan while pushing the debt to even more obscene levels? Or, I know, we could use our air force to launch an attack from bases in the US and bomb the nuke sites even more efficiently than we could do it with the navy. Or we could just spend half the money we spend on the navy on a full-scale ABM system and laugh at anyone who thinks that building a few nukes means they can martyr themselves for the cause and destroy the great satan.
BOMB NUKE SITES??? HOW MAD ARE YOU?!?!?
Honestly, you bomb a nuke site, chances are you'll have radioactive material scattered in a 100-mile radius, if you're lucky. And chances are, that's gonna get the entire middle east uniting against you, or at least falling into anarchy as they all decide to attack everyone at once. And as both candidates said, their main objectives include world peace. Great one there.
p_gray99 wrote: And sit idly by while our enemies develop nukes. Good idea, let's do it!
And the alternative is what exactly? Invade Iran and make Iraq look like a flawless and sensible plan while pushing the debt to even more obscene levels? Or, I know, we could use our air force to launch an attack from bases in the US and bomb the nuke sites even more efficiently than we could do it with the navy. Or we could just spend half the money we spend on the navy on a full-scale ABM system and laugh at anyone who thinks that building a few nukes means they can martyr themselves for the cause and destroy the great satan.
I'm not a military expert, but I think relying on a full-scale ABM system is pretty stupid.
If you put all your eggs into one single system to protect yourself, then you better hope it works 100% of the time. And I don't trust our government to do that. What would be an acceptable failure rate for not-intercepting a nuclear ballistic missile?
given that nobody else has a navy capable of getting across those oceans to attack us.
Lets start here.
Yes, lets. Could you state exactly which countries have a navy capable of launching an effective attack against ground-based defenses AND transporting enough invasion troops to do anything remotely useful AND prevent those troop ships from being sunk by ground-based defenses.
Quite a few countries in Europe for a start, or at least if they joined together they'd easily manage it. But assuming you mean the USA's enemies, you've still got a reasonable amount. Such as Russia, China.
p_gray99 wrote: Honestly, you bomb a nuke site, chances are you'll have radioactive material scattered in a 100-mile radius, if you're lucky.
Chances are you have no idea how nuclear weapons work.
And chances are, that's gonna get the entire middle east uniting against you, or at least falling into anarchy as they all decide to attack everyone at once. And as both candidates said, their main objectives include world peace. Great one there.
So, if launching this attack is such a bad idea, what the hell is the navy going to do? Does the middle east magically become less united because the attack was done with carrier-based F-18s instead of US-based B-2s?
given that nobody else has a navy capable of getting across those oceans to attack us.
Lets start here.
Yes, lets. Could you state exactly which countries have a navy capable of launching an effective attack against ground-based defenses AND transporting enough invasion troops to do anything remotely useful AND prevent those troop ships from being sunk by ground-based defenses.
Yeah exactly none of that has any relation to the quoted statement; which is why I QFTed it. Should I make the letters bigger? I shall.
d-usa wrote: If you put all your eggs into one single system to protect yourself, then you better hope it works 100% of the time. And I don't trust our government to do that. What would be an acceptable failure rate for not-intercepting a nuclear ballistic missile?
Or you just launch multiple interceptors per incoming warhead. If each missile is 90% effective and you launch three per enemy missile I think that pretty well reduces the thought of attacking the US to "no real hope of success, guaranteed destruction of your country" and ensures that nobody would ever attempt it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote: Yeah exactly none of that has any relation to the quoted statement; which is why I QFTed it. Should I make the letters bigger? I shall.
Oh FFS that's just pathetic nitpicking. In the context of the usefulness of a particular military strategy it should be blindingly obvious that "getting across the ocean" means more than just moving a ship a sufficiently long distance.
d-usa wrote: If you put all your eggs into one single system to protect yourself, then you better hope it works 100% of the time. And I don't trust our government to do that. What would be an acceptable failure rate for not-intercepting a nuclear ballistic missile?
Or you just launch multiple interceptors per incoming warhead. If each missile is 90% effective and you launch three per enemy missile I think that pretty well reduces the thought of attacking the US to "no real hope of success, guaranteed destruction of your country" and ensures that nobody would ever attempt it.
p_gray99 wrote: Honestly, you bomb a nuke site, chances are you'll have radioactive material scattered in a 100-mile radius, if you're lucky.
Chances are you have no idea how nuclear weapons work.
You're right in that I don't know how far the material would scatter. But I have a reasonable amount of knowledge about how some space probes work, including those that are nuclear-powered, and were they to blow up at a height of 1000m then you'd be looking at the vast majority of america being covered. Bombing nukes isn't a good idea.
And chances are, that's gonna get the entire middle east uniting against you, or at least falling into anarchy as they all decide to attack everyone at once. And as both candidates said, their main objectives include world peace. Great one there.
So, if launching this attack is such a bad idea, what the hell is the navy going to do? Does the middle east magically become less united because the attack was done with carrier-based F-18s instead of US-based B-2s?
No, transport spec ops to the country and take out the controller of the nukes before they're finished. Simple.
AustonT wrote: Yeah exactly none of that has any relation to the quoted statement; which is why I QFTed it. Should I make the letters bigger? I shall.
Oh FFS that's just pathetic nitpicking. In the context of the usefulness of a particular military strategy it should be blindingly obvious that "getting across the ocean" means more than just moving a ship a sufficiently long distance.
Really? Because like 5 minutes ago you said the only useful ships were the ones with nuclear weapons. But now all of a sudden "crossing the ocean" means moving an invasion force. It's not nitpicking it's pointing out the utter stupidity of your statement and you bumbling around trying to make it work.
p_gray99 wrote: But I have a reasonable amount of knowledge about how some space probes work, including those that are nuclear-powered, and were they to blow up at a height of 1000m then you'd be looking at the vast majority of america being covered.
No.
No, transport spec ops to the country and take out the controller of the nukes before they're finished. Simple.
First of all, what does this have to do with the usefulness of the navy?
Second, this is the plot of a bad movie, not a realistic method of preventing another country from getting nuclear weapons.
I think we have a case of a Connecticut general in King Reality's court.
In all seriousness, though, I'm always eager to hear actual proposals for cutting the military. People with no knowledge of it often advocate it, but can never seem to speak intelligently about what should and should not be cut - short of the pacifistic, "Cut everything! Give peace a chance!" approaches.
So if you have serious proposals, Peregrine, I'm all ears.
AustonT wrote: Really? Because like 5 minutes ago you said the only useful ships were the ones with nuclear weapons. But now all of a sudden "crossing the ocean" means moving an invasion force. It's not nitpicking it's pointing out the utter stupidity of your statement and you bumbling around trying to make it work.
In a purely defensive role the only useful ships are the submarines carrying nuclear missiles to ensure MAD. Let's not forget that you ignored the first half of the sentence when you quoted it.
And yes, it's nitpicking, because which is a more likely interpretation of the statement about crossing the ocean:
1) No other navy has the ability to move its ships that far.
or
2) No other navy has the ability to project power across an ocean and accomplish any meaningful result against the US.
AustonT wrote: Really? Because like 5 minutes ago you said the only useful ships were the ones with nuclear weapons. But now all of a sudden "crossing the ocean" means moving an invasion force. It's not nitpicking it's pointing out the utter stupidity of your statement and you bumbling around trying to make it work.
In a purely defensive role the only useful ships are the submarines carrying nuclear missiles to ensure MAD. Let's not forget that you ignored the first half of the sentence when you quoted it.
And yes, it's nitpicking, because which is a more likely interpretation of the statement about crossing the ocean:
1) No other navy has the ability to move its ships that far.
or
2) No other navy has the ability to project power across an ocean and accomplish any meaningful result against the US.
I'm just going to guess that there is a nuclear submarine that isn't on our side parked closer to our coast than we want to think about.
AustonT wrote: Really? Because like 5 minutes ago you said the only useful ships were the ones with nuclear weapons. But now all of a sudden "crossing the ocean" means moving an invasion force. It's not nitpicking it's pointing out the utter stupidity of your statement and you bumbling around trying to make it work.
In a purely defensive role the only useful ships are the submarines carrying nuclear missiles to ensure MAD. Let's not forget that you ignored the first half of the sentence when you quoted it.
And yes, it's nitpicking, because which is a more likely interpretation of the statement about crossing the ocean:
1) No other navy has the ability to move its ships that far.
or
2) No other navy has the ability to project power across an ocean and accomplish any meaningful result against the US.
d-usa wrote: I'm just going to guess that there is a nuclear submarine that isn't on our side parked closer to our coast than we want to think about.
Of course there is, but it isn't going to accomplish any meaningful attack since using those nukes means our ground-based ICBMs turn the country that owns that sub into a radioactive wasteland. All it's going to do is sit there and hope WWIII doesn't start, and all our navy could do is sit there and watch it.
d-usa wrote: Keep on not answering the question, effectively zero will make us feel warm and cozy when one gets through.
Except one WON'T get through because once the chance of getting a missile through drops that low a nuclear attack is just a quick way of committing suicide. You can't expect to inflict enough damage to win the war, and you certainly can't expect to survive the inevitable retaliation. Therefore you never launch the attack.
p_gray99 wrote: But I have a reasonable amount of knowledge about how some space probes work, including those that are nuclear-powered, and were they to blow up at a height of 1000m then you'd be looking at the vast majority of america being covered.
No.
Sure, just deny it without any valid reasoning. There's no way you can ever be wrong!
Sure, I'll accept it seems unlikely. But there's tonnes of high explosives as good as next to very large quantities of unstable uranium (or similar) or unstable hydrogen, depending on what kind of nuke. Chances are, this kind of nuke would use uranium (or similar). Now, these explosives also happen to be stored below the nuclear fuel. When they explode, the nuclear fuel is launched (quite literally) miles into the air. Probably not high enough to catch the jet streams, but still, massive distances. It also breaks up into fragments of fuel, that handily fit easily into the lungs. They are tiny, so keep flying for hours due to air resistance holding them up at times, and because there's so many particals travelling so fast, they can quite easily travel hundreds of miles. And given that they're quite capable of fitting into the lungs, alpha radiation from these particles can very easily cause mutations. Whatever you do, you don't bomb nukes. It's just an insane idea.
No, transport spec ops to the country and take out the controller of the nukes before they're finished. Simple.
First of all, what does this have to do with the usefulness of the navy?
Second, this is the plot of a bad movie, not a realistic method of preventing another country from getting nuclear weapons.
You need to get the troops there somehow. And a country will take a while producing nukes, you can quite easily invade such a country in that time, so long as you have the transports needed. Which pretty much means ships.
d-usa wrote: Keep on not answering the question, effectively zero will make us feel warm and cozy when one gets through.
Except one WON'T get through because once the chance of getting a missile through drops that low a nuclear attack is just a quick way of committing suicide. You can't expect to inflict enough damage to win the war, and you certainly can't expect to survive the inevitable retaliation. Therefore you never launch the attack.
Still not an answer, you are bad at this game.
With or without an ABM system, a full scale nuclear attack is suicide. They are going to fire everything they got and hope something goes through. That doesn't count rogue nations firing something and hoping it goes through.
But just how confident are you that the system will be 100% effective. What is your acceptable failure rate?
Hey, I live in Oklahoma City. We got a big AFB here, I would imagine one of them is aimed at us. I would want to know what failure rate the person designing this thing is comfortable with
d-usa wrote: Still not an answer, you are bad at this game.
I already answered it. The acceptable failure rate is zero, because the actual failure rate is so close to zero that you can just round it to zero. There's no point in nitpicking a 0.1% failure rate vs. a 0.2% failure rate because either one of them effectively means "nuclear missile attack isn't possible".
That doesn't count rogue nations firing something and hoping it goes through.
Ok, let's say you're a rogue nation. You have 10 ICBMs ready to launch. I have 500 ABM interceptors ready to launch. You have two choices:
1) Launch your missiles, ensure your country is reduced to a radioactive wasteland, and hope that you get lucky with the 0.1% chance that a single missile gets through to its target.
or
2) Loudly threaten to launch your shiny new missiles and use them as a bargaining tool.
Effective ABM changes the scenario from "take them down with us" to "die for no purpose" and ensures that nobody sane enough to GET nuclear weapons would ever use them against you.
What about when you've fired off all those ABMs and find that all the other countries want to join this country's side in the nuclear war? I'm pretty certain that China and Russia have more than 10 nukes between them.
So your plan is to use a system that cannot be guaranteed to be 100% successful based on all the testing we have done and the possibility of cyber warfare to disable our defenses while also counting on suicidal nations willing to use nuclear weapons to be reasonable?
And this is so totally foolproof that we don't have to worry about failure rates?
p_gray99 wrote: What about when you've fired off all those ABMs and find that all the other countries want to join this country's side in the nuclear war? I'm pretty certain that China and Russia have more than 10 nukes between them.
We're talking about rogue nations. You know, Iran, North Korea, etc, the countries that have a very low number of nuclear weapons but unstable leadership that might actually try to use them. China and Russia aren't a factor because they're run by relatively sane people who are properly deterred by MAD, and therefore won't launch an attack unless they are attacked first.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Can we say this to you with regards to the navy, out of curiosity? Because you've made some pretty hilarious claims about shore missiles and the like.
Feel free to explain what those claims are and why they're wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: So your plan is to use a system that cannot be guaranteed to be 100% successful based on all the testing we have done and the possibility of cyber warfare to disable our defenses while also counting on suicidal nations willing to use nuclear weapons to be reasonable?
And again, you don't need 100% effectiveness when you have multiple redundant systems. If each missile is 90% effective and you launch a dozen interceptors at each incoming warhead the chances of failure are effectively zero.
And yes, suicidal nations will be reasonable at some point. Without ABM there's a chance that a suicidal religious fanatic might decide that the martyrdom of their entire country is worth it if it means destroying a few US cities. With ABM the entire situation changes, since it's no longer a case of "take them with us" with a reasonable chance of success. Even suicidal nations aren't going to commit suicide for nothing.
d-usa wrote: So your plan is to use a system that cannot be guaranteed to be 100% successful based on all the testing we have done and the possibility of cyber warfare to disable our defenses while also counting on suicidal nations willing to use nuclear weapons to be reasonable?
And again, you don't need 100% effectiveness when you have multiple redundant systems. If each missile is 90% effective and you launch a dozen interceptors at each incoming warhead the chances of failure are effectively zero.
And yes, suicidal nations will be reasonable at some point. Without ABM there's a chance that a suicidal religious fanatic might decide that the martyrdom of their entire country is worth it if it means destroying a few US cities. With ABM the entire situation changes, since it's no longer a case of "take them with us" with a reasonable chance of success. Even suicidal nations aren't going to commit suicide for nothing.
I don't know much about these defense systems, but how many systems are they run on? Is there one master system? Because if so, it'd only take one hacker a few seconds to get in, if they knew what they were doing, and they could shut down the whole thing. While that isn't likely, prove that, say, Korea isn't training hundreds of hackers to take down all the systems at once.
p_gray99 wrote: I don't know much about these defense systems, but how many systems are they run on? Is there one master system? Because if so, it'd only take one hacker a few seconds to get in, if they knew what they were doing, and they could shut down the whole thing. While that isn't likely, prove that, say, Korea isn't training hundreds of hackers to take down all the systems at once.
Please stop getting your information from bad movies. Hacking isn't some magical button you press like in a video game, and the idea that one hacker could shut down an entire ABM system in "a few seconds" is just laughable.
Hey, I live in Oklahoma City. We got a big AFB here, I would imagine one of them is aimed at us. I would want to know what failure rate the person designing this thing is comfortable with
I live in Colorado Springs, when WW3 comes I'll be dead in SECONDS. Five major military installations (well four, but the Airforce Academy's here too) with three major commands including U.S. Space Command and NORCOM? Good night gracie.
p_gray99 wrote: I don't know much about these defense systems, but how many systems are they run on? Is there one master system? Because if so, it'd only take one hacker a few seconds to get in, if they knew what they were doing, and they could shut down the whole thing. While that isn't likely, prove that, say, Korea isn't training hundreds of hackers to take down all the systems at once.
Please stop getting your information from bad movies. Hacking isn't some magical button you press like in a video game, and the idea that one hacker could shut down an entire ABM system in "a few seconds" is just laughable.
I didn't know that they turned Stuxnet into a movie...
Alright, not a few seconds. But again, you accuse me of knowing nothing about hacking when I already know quite a bit of coding for computers (I'm currently learning Python). And yes, with that strong a defense system, I can see a team of a thousand trained hackers doing it in a day. And once you've done one, you know exactly how to do the rest. And once you've done that, it'll take at least an hour to take back enough systems for there to be more than a 10% chance of stopping all the missiles. Still certain you want to rely on this system?
p_gray99 wrote: But again, you accuse me of knowing nothing about hacking when I already know quite a bit of coding for computers (I'm currently learning Python).
Oh, you're currently learning a programming language. Good for you. I'm sure that makes you an expert in security.
And yes, with that strong a defense system, I can see a team of a thousand trained hackers doing it in a day.
Err, no. Even ignoring the tiny little problem of how to coordinate this team of "trained hackers", it's pretty hard to hack a system that you can't connect to from outside.
And once you've done that, it'll take at least an hour to take back enough systems for there to be more than a 10% chance of stopping all the missiles. Still certain you want to rely on this system?
p_gray99 wrote: But again, you accuse me of knowing nothing about hacking when I already know quite a bit of coding for computers (I'm currently learning Python).
Oh, you're currently learning a programming language. Good for you. I'm sure that makes you an expert in security
bwahahahahahaha. What's your Naval War College class number Lord Nelson?
Yeah, getting into the system is a little difficult. But once that's done, it's a simple case of getting through masses of firewalls etc. Again, I'm not an expert, and yes knowing a programming language means I'm not an expert on security but equally I don't know nothing. For example, you can simply use slave computers to overload the system, and keep trying at a password or whatever blocks the way until you get in. And co-ordination's really going to be a problem? If you're going to train them to hack a computer, you have the time to teach them a little co-ordination.
And my last comment was basically saying all the systems are likely to have the same defenses or at least similar. Hack one, you're not too far away from have multiple systems.
No, I'm not an expert, I'm simply saying that from what I know it wouldn't be unreasonable for a government with the resources that a country with nukes is likely to have to manage to get inside the security. And even if this is extremely unlikely, it's possible and a simple way of getting past the anti-nuke defenses. Which means you don't want to rely on them alone.
AustonT wrote: bwahahahahahaha. What's your Naval War College class number Lord Nelson?
Why did I ever expect that you'd actually provide an argument with substance?
For example, you can simply use slave computers to overload the system, and keep trying at a password or whatever blocks the way until you get in.
Assuming:
1) The system allows remote login at all.
and
2) The person who designed it was an idiot and didn't make it so that after X number of bad guesses the system locks you out.
and
3) The system allows passwords that are short enough that brute forcing it is even remotely possible.
And co-ordination's really going to be a problem?
Yes, because "hacking" is more complicated than just accumulating a certain number of units of hacking skill and rolling a hack device check. Your "team" is probably going to consist of 10 people doing useful work while the other 990 just get in the way.
No, I'm not an expert, I'm simply saying that from what I know it wouldn't be unreasonable for a government with the resources that a country with nukes is likely to have to manage to get inside the security
It would be unreasonable because only an idiot would design an ABM control system that can even be accessed remotely, and you'd have to be even dumber to design one that couldn't do a complete hardware reset to instantly regain control.
p_gray99 wrote: Yeah, getting into the system is a little difficult. But once that's done, it's a simple case of getting through masses of firewalls etc. Again, I'm not an expert, and yes knowing a programming language means I'm not an expert on security but equally I don't know nothing. For example, you can simply use slave computers to overload the system, and keep trying at a password or whatever blocks the way until you get in. And co-ordination's really going to be a problem? If you're going to train them to hack a computer, you have the time to teach them a little co-ordination.
And my last comment was basically saying all the systems are likely to have the same defenses or at least similar. Hack one, you're not too far away from have multiple systems.
No, I'm not an expert, I'm simply saying that from what I know it wouldn't be unreasonable for a government with the resources that a country with nukes is likely to have to manage to get inside the security. And even if this is extremely unlikely, it's possible and a simple way of getting past the anti-nuke defenses. Which means you don't want to rely on them alone.
OT: Once you learn Python... learn some PERL... wicked scripting language.
Peregrine wrote: Why did I ever expect that you'd actually provide an argument with substance?
It's a reasonable point. No other navy in the world stands a reasonable chance of conducting naval operations against the continental United States not because of our land-based defenses but because of - you guessed it - our fleet superiority.
You all are working with a nuke hitting the ground. You can shoot a nuke with a ABM on its dowward trajectory. What will truly screw the USA is a nuke strike above like in the stratosphere (or something) EMP coverage across the US. That will totally shutdown the US.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:To those with the gall to actually post here that we still use horses and bayonets in the military.
I consider the fact that I'm not posting a string of well deserved personal insults a mitzvah.
The point raised by the president was that we no longer need a vast fleet of warships, that aircraft and aircraft carriers changed the entire course of naval warfare in the second half of WW2 and that large fleets have not been relevant since.
Yeah someone should go tell all those other ships to retire cause we are only need aircraft carriers!
Or maybe in the half century since WW2 it's been painfully obvious that a large fleet is necessary to a nation straddling two oceans on a planet with more water than land.
Also known as "Dur"
Also, stop being pedants.
And it's back
@matty
Spoiler:
stupid Brits with their horses and bayonet charges. Where do find the gall?
Yep, pedantic.
The president was referring to the differences in methods of conflict over the last century, we don't employ cavalry charges or send men over the top with fixed bayonets to die in droves to machine gun fire because the methods of waging war are changing. We've even see a significant change to the relevance of armoured divisions and large standing armies vs small elite forces in certain theatres. These can be considered to be outmoded warfare concepts.
But by all means post pictures of men in uniforms sitting on mules and consider yourself the victor.
... No, that's it!! You're still wrong because they're mules not horses!! (see how annoying that is?)
Seaward wrote: It's a reasonable point. No other navy in the world stands a reasonable chance of conducting naval operations against the continental United States not because of our land-based defenses but because of - you guessed it - our fleet superiority.
Correction: no other navy in the world stands a reasonable chance of conducting naval operations against the continental United States because of geography. You can dream all you want about your paranoid fantasy where an attack could happen at any minute, but the reality of the situation is that there's no viable strategic goal that includes a naval attack against the US. An invasion is impossible, and just bombing random targets without invading only gives the US justification for obliterating your military with land-based bombers. Now, maybe I'm just a liberal traitor, but I don't really see why we need to spend obscene amounts of money on defending against an attack that's never going to happen.
Oh yeah, and also because no other country spends enough on their navy to make anything but a pointless suicide attack against an alternate US that bought land-based defenses instead of the world's largest navy.
We're all victors at the end. Like I said before Only one unit still use horses
As for the bayonet. I used that sucker plenty of times. Mainly on removing either russian or US concentina wire out from under and around my MRAP. Look at the pic posted of current bayonet. You can see the locking nub and insert hole on the blade itself where it can turn into wire cutters.
Jihadin wrote: We're all victors at the end. Like I said before Only one unit still use horses
As for the bayonet. I used that sucker plenty of times. Mainly on removing either russian or US concentina wire out from under and around my MRAP. Look at the pic posted of current bayonet. You can see the locking nub and insert hole on the blade itself where it can turn into wire cutters.
Actually the last U.S. Cavalry charge was in 2001 I believe, Army SF attacking a Taliban stronghold with the Northern Alliance.
I remember that but its no factor. Cav charges are now done with M1's and Bradley's..throw in some Apache and Kiowa Warriors...thats a modern day cav charge....ccccaaaaaaavvvvvvvvv...anyway...what the SF did is...well their SF...they are allowed to be crazy and do missions thats off the wall....except bringing strippers in Bagram Afghanistan to dance at their NCO club on Camp Vance......bastards never invited me.."snif"
Peregrine wrote: Correction: no other navy in the world stands a reasonable chance of conducting naval operations against the continental United States because of geography. You can dream all you want about your paranoid fantasy where an attack could happen at any minute, but the reality of the situation is that there's no viable strategic goal that includes a naval attack against the US. An invasion is impossible, and just bombing random targets without invading only gives the US justification for obliterating your military with land-based bombers. Now, maybe I'm just a liberal traitor, but I don't really see why we need to spend obscene amounts of money on defending against an attack that's never going to happen.
Oh yeah, and also because no other country spends enough on their navy to make anything but a pointless suicide attack against an alternate US that bought land-based defenses instead of the world's largest navy.
Did that geography not apply during the '40s, in your view?
And no. It's not geography. It's the fact that we have the most powerful fleet in the world. I do not think an attack could happen any minute. I also don't think a fire's going to break out in my domicile anytime soon. Doesn't prevent me from keeping fire extinguishers around, and rope ladders on the third and fourth floors. It would make even more sense to take those precautions if fire extinguishers and rope ladders were an active deterrent against fires breaking out.
If you truly believe land-based bombers are our answer to everything, we need to have another, much longer discussion. We use carrier air wings for a hell of a lot, and before you start, no, those other ships in a carrier group aren't just along for the ride.
I tried to stay away from this thread, I really did.
But to those who are attempting to rebut the President's statement:
"You mention the Navy, for example, and the fact that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets. We have these things called aircraft carriers and planes land on them. We have ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. It’s not a game of Battleship where we’re counting ships, it’s ‘What are our priorities?’”
... with images showing horses, mules, bayonets and/or combat knives...
Scott wrote: I tried to stay away from this thread, I really did.
But to those who are attempting to rebut the President's statement:
"You mention the Navy, for example, and the fact that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets. We have these things called aircraft carriers and planes land on them. We have ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. It’s not a game of Battleship where we’re counting ships, it’s ‘What are our priorities?’”
... with images showing horses, mules, bayonets and/or combat knives...
The point.
You missed it.
To those who didn't - should I laugh or cry?
Answer:
Was the point that the Navy doesn't have horses and bayonets? Or that we had aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines in our 500 ship navy?
p_gray99 wrote: I don't know much about these defense systems, but how many systems are they run on? Is there one master system? Because if so, it'd only take one hacker a few seconds to get in, if they knew what they were doing, and they could shut down the whole thing. While that isn't likely, prove that, say, Korea isn't training hundreds of hackers to take down all the systems at once.
Hacking does not work like that. If hackers could just get into a secure system in a few seconds, Bank of America would be giving it up to every hacker in the world.
p_gray99 wrote: Yeah, getting into the system is a little difficult. But once that's done, it's a simple case of getting through masses of firewalls etc. Again, I'm not an expert, and yes knowing a programming language means I'm not an expert on security but equally I don't know nothing. For example, you can simply use slave computers to overload the system, and keep trying at a password or whatever blocks the way until you get in. And co-ordination's really going to be a problem? If you're going to train them to hack a computer, you have the time to teach them a little co-ordination.
No. You can't. Its real simple. If you don't want to have your computer hacked by someone from Korea, you don't put it on the Internet. Companies use this practice all the time. You can expect secure computers with nuclear launch codes to utilize the same basic practice.
Said hackers would need the following info to hack into that computer
* To be on the network. This would likely require being on site or having VPN access from social engineering. You don't just 'get through firewalls' to do that.
* To know the IP of the server to be hacked. What good does it do hacking the wrong machine.
* To have the machine your hacking not have the latest patches to avoid OS hacks.
* To know the application that you want to hack. You got to know what port to go after.
* To know the OS of the machine your trying to hack. How good are your skills with mainframes? There is a reason banks still use em.
And then you need to try to use login/password attempts to get into said application. Most accounts on secure systems are locked after a few failed attempts. But even if that was not the case, you would have to wait while you tried a dictionary hack, then a brute force hack attempt. Those take a long time to process.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: OT: Once you learn Python... learn some PERL... wicked scripting language.
Perl is a great language. I still use it when I want to parse text out.
Do you write code?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Yes, because "hacking" is more complicated than just accumulating a certain number of units of hacking skill and rolling a hack device check. Your "team" is probably going to consist of 10 people doing useful work while the other 990 just get in the way.
Honestly the best way to 'hack' that kind of a system is to offer the mainframe developer $30,000,000 or so to betray his country. Just do some social engineering -- buying the engineers some beers until you find the ones that are disgrunted enough to do that. You don't even have to have the security clearance to meet up with engineers during lunch break to hang out and such.
That's really the problem with security. You can make a system idiot-proof, but then the world just makes a bigger idiot. Dummies opening attachments, putting passwords on post-it notes stuck to their monitors, etc...
Scott wrote: I tried to stay away from this thread, I really did.
But to those who are attempting to rebut the President's statement:
"You mention the Navy, for example, and the fact that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets. We have these things called aircraft carriers and planes land on them. We have ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. It’s not a game of Battleship where we’re counting ships, it’s ‘What are our priorities?’”
... with images showing horses, mules, bayonets and/or combat knives...
The point.
You missed it.
To those who didn't - should I laugh or cry?
Answer:
Was the point that the Navy doesn't have horses and bayonets? Or that we had aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines in our 500 ship navy?
No - that we don't have enough dirigibles or Kamikaze Highlanders, duh.
whembly wrote: OT: Once you learn Python... learn some PERL... wicked scripting language.
Perl is a great language. I still use it when I want to parse text out.
Do you write code?
Yup... all the time.
Lately, we have interfaces between our various heterogeneous systems...
The logging "alert" capabilities from a vended application sucks... as in, it'll only log it. We need to know when a certain error occurs and page/email the local staff of the problem. Been working great
Next agenda is to determine if logic can be defined to "fix" and "replay" the failed messages.
...and eventually someone pushes too far and the world ends.
What do you think Chinese nuclear capability amounts to? They can't even draw even with the US in a nuclear exchange.
No nuclear conflict between the US and China ends the world, and the idea that it would happen, even in the event of a major naval conflict, is ludicrous. The US won't use nuclear weapons because our conventional forces are superior, the Chinese won't use use nuclear weapons because our nuclear forces are superior.
AustonT wrote: @falcon I don't need a substantive argument to counter the garbage you have posted ITT. Mirth and derision will suffice
@MGS QQ more
That is all
I love how certain individuals on dakka can admit in print that they are consciously not trying to add anything constructive to a discusssion and are in fact intentionally attacking others and yet their posts are allowed to stand and the poster allowed to continue to troll away...
No nuclear conflict between the US and China ends the world, and the idea that it would happen, even in the event of a major naval conflict, is ludicrous. The US won't use nuclear weapons because our conventional forces are superior, the Chinese won't use use nuclear weapons because our nuclear forces are superior.
I think unless someone makes a seriously bad mistake (the reactor in a sub goes critical off someone's coast etc - and even then... ) the chance of a nuclear conflict between the US and China is practically zero.
Firstly, even if you are argued about MAD or not, the impact would be such that the world's economy would go into immediate and significant decline, bringing in an era of hardship for the developed world. Both China and the US are making far too much money for any kind of conflict to be conscionable - politicians on both sides might make noises, the occasional bit of sabre rattling, but then the shipments of flatscreen TVs continue. Even if, again, there was some kind of accident both sides would back-peddle to make sure it doesn't escalate - see for instance the US accidental bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade (which would be hilarious in its incompetence, if it were not for human lives being lost).
China also doesn't have a history of aggressive expansionism in the same way that Europe and the US do - we are not likely to see conflicts outside of China's immediate vicinity.
Regarding the main topic, does it not bother many Americans that Romney seems to have changed his policies so much on his run to the presidential candidacy? He changed his stance on abortion, and previously brought in an insurance healthcare plan that acted as a template for Obamacare - yet he has since claimed that he will dismantle the healthcare system if he comes into office. How can anyone voting for him know what he is really likely to do?
From a purely selfish, UK-orientated view, I think most people with a knowledge of politics are hoping that we have another 4 years without a Republican government in the Whitehouse. Simply because an attack by Israel on Iran is that much more likely should Romney become president, as is a conflict in Iran; the latter we would probably end up getting drawn into again.
Seaward wrote: Did that geography not apply during the '40s, in your view?
The chances of a successful invasion of the US in the 1940s were exactly zero. Our navy was important, but as a tool for power projection and invading foreign countries, not for defense.
And no. It's not geography. It's the fact that we have the most powerful fleet in the world. I do not think an attack could happen any minute. I also don't think a fire's going to break out in my domicile anytime soon. Doesn't prevent me from keeping fire extinguishers around, and rope ladders on the third and fourth floors. It would make even more sense to take those precautions if fire extinguishers and rope ladders were an active deterrent against fires breaking out.
Except let's say in that analogy fire extinguishers cost you a million dollars each, and the chances of a fire are reduced to less than the chances of your house being destroyed by an asteroid impact. Do you still feel that it's worth having them?
If you truly believe land-based bombers are our answer to everything, we need to have another, much longer discussion. We use carrier air wings for a hell of a lot, and before you start, no, those other ships in a carrier group aren't just along for the ride.
We use them for a hell of a lot of ways of fighting foreign wars, never for defense.
AustonT wrote: @falcon I don't need a substantive argument to counter the garbage you have posted ITT. Mirth and derision will suffice
@MGS QQ more
That is all
I love how certain individuals on dakka can admit in print that they are consciously not trying to add anything constructive to a discusssion and are in fact intentionally attacking others and yet their posts are allowed to stand and the poster allowed to continue to troll away...
Dakka moderation ftw...
True. They are slacking.
Why, they haven't deleted your post as off topic spam!
Jihadin wrote: Something really really wrong if the US Navy is on the defense
So you admit that the navy exists to be an offensive weapon then? Good. Now we can get back to debating the wisdom of increasing our debt to obscene levels to keep having that offensive weapon.
AustonT wrote: @falcon I don't need a substantive argument to counter the garbage you have posted ITT. Mirth and derision will suffice
@MGS QQ more
That is all
I love how certain individuals on dakka can admit in print that they are consciously not trying to add anything constructive to a discusssion and are in fact intentionally attacking others and yet their posts are allowed to stand and the poster allowed to continue to troll away...
whembly wrote: There was not a "true" attempt to make this bipartisan... in fact, they didn't need to as they had carte blanche.
"They didn't need to" is not the same thing as "they didn't try". For instance, for the invasion of Iraq Bush didn't need the support of any allies, as the US military was more than capable of undertaking the attack by itself. But you'd be a nut to pretend there wasn't a lot of effort made to bring in other countries, with wildly varying levels of success.
There was a large number of outreaches made, at first to the Republicans as a whole, then to specific more moderate Republicans, and finally again to those more moderate Republicans as a possible way of stepping around the Blue Dogs that were threatening to stop the process.
Seb... I avidly paid attention to this as I'm in the Healthcare industry... so, I know what happened. I feel like you're getting filtered information from your standpoint.
Irregardless... the whole fething bill was UNPOPULAR. Shouldn't the Democrats have been more sensitive to the electorate?
And yes, the ACA bill was passed unconventionally (aka, rammed down our throats).
But, if you want to bring in Wyden-Ryan plan, that Medicare cut is the same, but the mechanism to achieve those cuts are drastically different.
No, the $700 billion medicare cut is related to specific cost savings initiatives. You go on to describe the general mechanisms of each bill, not the specific cost savings measures that plan to make $700 billion in savings.
The $700 billion figure is actually about one third no longer overpaying on Medicare advantage, one third reduced hospital payments (which the hospitals have agreed to, knowing the large decrease in paying customer due to ACA's insurance coverage expansion will more than make up the shortfall), and one third for a bunch of minor changes, like no longer needing as much funding for hospitals who see more uninsured patients.
Every single one of those policies is kept within Ryan's budget. Every one.
So what? It was an honest attempt to have a coversation... the Democratic Senate refuse to engage on the Republican on this topic.
The Wyden-Ryan plan preserves the ACA health bill's targets for future Medicare spending, but employs an entirely different mechanism: premium support and competitive bidding. Seniors would enjoy exactly the same benefits that they do now, but along with the traditional Medicare program, they would enjoy the option of choosing among a selection of government-approved private insurance plans.
And given medicare advantage presently pays out premiums at about 117% of what it'd cost to directly provide coverage... then a scheme that thinks it'll solve healthcare with an expanded medicare advantage model is just nutty.
That implies that the government can direct provided coverage "better and cheaper"... and no, I don't think they can.
I'd say if the government really want to get involved in providing healthcare, then they need to go all the way ala the Canadian/NHS model. This half-ass way they're doing now is only making it more complex and yes, more expensive.
-Medicare is reformed as a premium support system, meaning that existing spending is repackaged as a fixed-amount benefit to each senior that he or she can use to purchase an insurance plan
Vouchers! Because Medicare Advantage isn't wasting enough money!
Yeah... it's evil... giving control to the consumer... they don't know what they're doing, so, better let the lizard overlord make that decision for them.
Edit: and to prove the point I said about your filtered information... this is telling... Obama is extremely popular outside of the US:
If the regular voters see this... I can see them voting for Romney out of spite.
So... we'll see in a couple of weeks what the American voters think... right? You down for a friendly wager?
Jihadin wrote: You all know the bayonet is still heavily used right? Wait....since "The Chosen One" said it went the way of the horses it must be true. You believers are funny. It still an issue item
So are horses. But the quantity in which they're used no longer defines the effectiveness of a military.
I refuse to believe you couldn't understand the analogy Obama made.
Obama said. “Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed."
We've same amount of bayonets and the same amount of horses. Granted horse cavalry is no longer around and the only unit that uses horses are the Old Guard for military funeral.
"He said fewer, but we've still got some."
fething seriously? You're just straight up going to pretend you don't understand that fewer doesn't mean none, and then go on to ignore that the point of the analogy is that old metrics of military strength (how many bayonets, or total ship count) has nothing to do with how many bayonets there actually are?
You're just going to pretend you don't understand that stuff?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote: Let's also pretend D-USA tha he was referring to the actual number of horse and bayonets. He was attempting to imply these were absent or nearly absent or obsolete.
No, he was saying they are no longer a useful metric of army strength. There was a time, about 200 years ago, when the number of riflemen (and their bayonets) you could put on the field was a pretty straight up declaration of your military strength. The side that could put 200,000 troops in the field wasn't automatically stronger than the side deploying 100,000, but it was a serious factor.
That isn't the case now. In the second Gulf War Iraq had greater troop strength than the Coalition, but it didn't mean half of one gak, because technologically superior weapons platforms matter so much more.
So trying to make an argument that the US navy is less powerful because it has less ships is exactly the same logic. It's the failed logic that let Britain pretend it was still a dominant naval power in 1938, even though it had failed to replace older ships, and was now in an age when improving manufacturing meant 10 year old ships were much less potent than modern vessels.
This is not a thing that should have to be explained. Seriously. I know you want to cheer for your side and boo the other side, but an important part of doing that and not looking silly is picking your battles. Obama had a good line. Concede that, and change tack to argue the point in another way. But trying to pretend you don't understand Obama's one-liner is just a failing strategy.
With all the beatings that Romney has taken for goofy things he's said I think Barack can spend a little time in the barrel.
Yeah, for when he does goof. But I don't see any point in playing stupid games that pretend 'few = none'.
Besides, if you look at some of our strategic rivals they're still building ships. It's not crazy to think that larger fleets could become relevant again.
And are they spamming low tech boats, or looking to build high end, high quality boats?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Seb... I avidly paid attention to this as I'm in the Healthcare industry... so, I know what happened. I feel like you're getting filtered information from your standpoint.
Irregardless... the whole fething bill was UNPOPULAR. Shouldn't the Democrats have been more sensitive to the electorate?
And yes, the ACA bill was passed unconventionally (aka, rammed down our throats).
It is unpopular, yes. But are you now conceding there were bipartisan efforts made?
So what? It was an honest attempt to have a coversation... the Democratic Senate refuse to engage on the Republican on this topic.
So do you now concede the $700 billion figure, and the same logic for each, is contained in both the ACA and the Ryan bill?
That implies that the government can direct provided coverage "better and cheaper"... and no, I don't think they can.
It does. The reasons for this are complex and market specific, but it remains true. Medicare Advantage costs 117% of what it would cost to directly provide those services.
There's nothing implied there. Just a straight up statement that is true. You either accept that knowledge, and figure out how it works with everything else you believe, or you play pretend games with stuff you'd rather believe.
I'd say if the government really want to get involved in providing healthcare, then they need to go all the way ala the Canadian/NHS model. This half-ass way they're doing now is only making it more complex and yes, more expensive.
It'd be nice if you could expand out to a base level system like NHS. One good thing that's come from all this debate is that it seems all the myths about treatment in the Canadian and UK systems have finally been killed - people are recognising it is cheaper and provides an equivalent level of coverage.
Yeah... it's evil... giving control to the consumer... they don't know what they're doing, so, better let the lizard overlord make that decision for them.
No. I've said for a long time one of the fundamental problems with US health is that the consumer doesn't get to pick his own healthcare, his employer picks it. It'd be great to reform that.
And while there are strong advantages to consumer choice, there is no point pretending it is the all wonderful answer to everything, in every market. And in this case, for market specific reasons, consumer choice has considerable limitations.
Edit: and to prove the point I said about your filtered information... this is telling... Obama is extremely popular outside of the US:
If the regular voters see this... I can see them voting for Romney out of spite.
That's little to do with filtered information. Honestly, there's little mainstream coverage of your politics here, and what there is mostly just apes the generally content free nonsense of your mainstream media.
It's more that the US is on the far right of politics, and so we're pretty much always going to prefer the more left wing candidate, who lines up more closely with our own politics.
So... we'll see in a couple of weeks what the American voters think... right? You down for a friendly wager?
Alrighty. Obama wins and you have to have Che Guevara as your avatar, for a month
Peregrine wrote: The chances of a successful invasion of the US in the 1940s were exactly zero. Our navy was important, but as a tool for power projection and invading foreign countries, not for defense.
Waterborne invasion is not the only possible threat posed by the sea. The metric is not, "Either you are being invaded by an amphibious assault force, or everything is fine." Churchill famously said that the only thing that truly frightened him during the war was the U-boat menace. U-boats made poor amphibious landing craft, so why would that be the case?
Except let's say in that analogy fire extinguishers cost you a million dollars each, and the chances of a fire are reduced to less than the chances of your house being destroyed by an asteroid impact. Do you still feel that it's worth having them?
If I'd gone through several fires before, and recognized that there was a chance fire could break out again, yes.
We use them for a hell of a lot of ways of fighting foreign wars, never for defense.
Seaward wrote: Waterborne invasion is not the only possible threat posed by the sea. The metric is not, "Either you are being invaded by an amphibious assault force, or everything is fine." Churchill famously said that the only thing that truly frightened him during the war was the U-boat menace. U-boats made poor amphibious landing craft, so why would that be the case?
Churchill said a lot of things. After the Fall of France, he spent several sleepless nights before telling his son whilst he shaved 'I have seen a way out of this, we must involve America' (or something like that, I'm paraphrasing - point is, Churchill was quite rightly gaking his pants after France collapsed in six weeks).
Also, the USA is not the UK. Unlike them, putting submarines on the coast won't threaten starvation. Now, I don't agree with much of what Perergine has said in this thread, but claiming the US navy is somehow there to defend the mainland, and not purely an implement of force projection is just wrong.
sebster wrote: Also, the USA is not the UK. Unlike them, putting submarines on the coast won't threaten starvation. Now, I don't agree with much of what Perergine has said in this thread, but claiming the US navy is somehow there to defend the mainland, and not purely an implement of force projection is just wrong.
No, it isn't. And we can compare credentials on this topic anytime you like. Or, like Auston did earlier with Peregrine, I can simply ask how much time you spent up in Newport.
The US Navy exists for a lot of things. Force projection is among them. Protection of seaborne American commerce is another. Protection of the United States is another.
Seaward wrote: The US Navy exists for a lot of things. Force projection is among them. Protection of seaborne American commerce is another. Protection of the United States is another.
Yeah. Seriously. $600 billion a year to stop pirates. That's totally a key operational goal of the modern US navy. Way to be completely sensible there.
Protection of US assets and business interests overseas... totally. I mean this isn't a moral complaint or anything, I think if you're going to have international commerce then the ability to ensure that economic commitments and resources overseas are defendable is not just reasonable, but exactly what a country should invest in. And that means force projection, which today means carrier groups capable of going anywhere in the world and dominating the skies.
So why the stupid nonsense about pirates? Just call it what it is.
Seaward wrote: The US Navy exists for a lot of things. Force projection is among them. Protection of seaborne American commerce is another. Protection of the United States is another.
Yeah. Seriously. $600 billion a year to stop pirates. That's totally a key operational goal of the modern US navy. Way to be completely sensible there.
Protection of US assets and business interests overseas... totally. I mean this isn't a moral complaint or anything, I think if you're going to have international commerce then the ability to ensure that economic commitments and resources overseas are defendable is not just reasonable, but exactly what a country should invest in. And that means force projection, which today means carrier groups capable of going anywhere in the world and dominating the skies.
So why the stupid nonsense about pirates? Just call it what it is.
When did I say anything about pirates?
Commerce raiding is a component of warfare that's been around for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
Commerce raiding is a component of warfare that's been around for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
So, exactly which countries are a plausible commerce raiding threat (that is, plausible outside of paranoid right-wing fantasy land)? When you're preparing your answer, please also explain the benefits of launching a commerce raiding attack and how they outweigh the fact that the US response to a commerce raiding attack, even without a navy, would most likely involve stealth bomber strikes obliterating every single navy base the country has.
sebster wrote: Protection of US assets and business interests overseas... totally. I mean this isn't a moral complaint or anything, I think if you're going to have international commerce then the ability to ensure that economic commitments and resources overseas are defendable is not just reasonable, but exactly what a country should invest in. And that means force projection, which today means carrier groups capable of going anywhere in the world and dominating the skies.
It's amazing how countries that aren't the US are able to have international commerce without building a navy bigger than every other navy in the world combined...
Peregrine wrote: So, exactly which countries are a plausible commerce raiding threat (that is, plausible outside of paranoid right-wing fantasy land)? When you're preparing your answer, please also explain the benefits of launching a commerce raiding attack and how they outweigh the fact that the US response to a commerce raiding attack, even without a navy, would most likely involve stealth bomber strikes obliterating every single navy base the country has.
At the moment? Zero.
If we got rid of the navy, as sebster is advocating due to it being in his mind exclusively a force projection platform That becomes a very long list.
sebster wrote: It's amazing how countries that aren't the US are able to have international commerce without building a navy bigger than every other navy in the world combined...
They do have navies, however, which might suggest those navies are useful for things other than force projection, which is the point currently being argued.
Seaward wrote: If we got rid of the navy, as sebster is advocating due to it being in his mind exclusively a force projection platform That becomes a very long list.
Did you miss the part where even without a navy the retaliation for a commerce raiding campaign would be way more than any plausible gain? Generally in the real world (instead of paranoid right-wing fantasy world) people have reasons for doing things besides "just because we can blow it up", and I have yet to see a plausible explanation of what exactly the point of a commerce raiding campaign would be.
And did you also miss the part where US commerce doesn't generally travel under armed naval escort at all times, which means that any hypothetical opponent willing to accept the inevitable retaliation could sink as many US ships as they like no matter how big a navy you have?
sebster wrote: They do have navies, however, which might suggest those navies are useful for things other than force projection, which is the point currently being argued.
Sure, but tiny navies in comparison, and yet they somehow manage to get the job done. Let's be honest here, it isn't about commerce protection, it's about maintaining the ability to fight foreign wars.
Did you miss the part where even without a navy the retaliation for a commerce raiding campaign would be way more than any plausible gain?
Yes. I don't consider it a valid point. We bombed the everloving hell out of German naval bases during World War II, but their commerce raiding wasn't thoroughly put down until our navy - and the Brits' of course - developed the proper tactics and countermeasures.
Generally in the real world (instead of paranoid right-wing fantasy world) people have reasons for doing things besides "just because we can blow it up", and I have yet to see a plausible explanation of what exactly the point of a commerce raiding campaign would be.
Ah, I see. You're confused as to the point of commerce raiding. Well, fortunately, its purpose hasn't changed since it was invented. It's got two primary ones: to deny the enemy necessary war materiel, and to cause discontent among the civilian populace.
And did you also miss the part where US commerce doesn't generally travel under armed naval escort at all times, which means that any hypothetical opponent willing to accept the inevitable retaliation could sink as many US ships as they like no matter how big a navy you have?
It does not at the moment, no, as we are not currently at war with anybody who has a seaworthy navy.
I'm starting to understand the dimensions of the problem, though; you believe that because we are not currently, as in right this second, fighting a conventional war, we will never do so again. That prediction's been made...well, let's say at least a couple times before, and it's always been wrong.
Sure, but tiny navies in comparison, and yet they somehow manage to get the job done. Let's be honest here, it isn't about commerce protection, it's about maintaining the ability to fight foreign wars.
Actually, it's about a lot of things. Force projection, absolutely. The ability to fight a two-front war, or two wars at once, by all means. That one we still view as pretty important, simply because we've had to do it before.
Seaward wrote: Yes. I don't consider it a valid point. We bombed the everloving hell out of German naval bases during World War II, but their commerce raiding wasn't thoroughly put down until our navy - and the Brits' of course - developed the proper tactics and countermeasures.
So, exactly which country is going to be determined enough to fight to the death even after the loss of their entire land-based military in retaliation for their acts of war against us?
Ah, I see. You're confused as to the point of commerce raiding. Well, fortunately, its purpose hasn't changed since it was invented. It's got two primary ones: to deny the enemy necessary war materiel, and to cause discontent among the civilian populace.
I know the point of commerce raiding. What I'm asking is who wants to do that and what does it gain them. Outside of paranoid right-wing fantasy land countries don't just suddenly decide to deny war materiel and cause discontent among the civilians just because it would be funny.
It does not at the moment, no, as we are not currently at war with anybody who has a seaworthy navy.
So what exactly is your plausible scenario where we have a declared war long enough for the escorts to reach their destination and arrange the convoys?
I'm starting to understand the dimensions of the problem, though; you believe that because we are not currently, as in right this second, fighting a conventional war, we will never do so again. That prediction's been made...well, let's say at least a couple times before, and it's always been wrong.
Except it's been made in a world without nuclear weapons, where it was actually possible to fight a total war. In the modern world any kind of invasion or occupation of the US would be impossible, and there's no plausible benefit to launching a suicidal commerce raiding campaign when the only thing you can accomplish long-term is to ensure the destruction of your military.
Actually, it's about a lot of things. Force projection, absolutely. The ability to fight a two-front war, or two wars at once, by all means. That one we still view as pretty important, simply because we've had to do it before.
Finally you admit it. Now can we finally get back to discussing whether we can afford that capability? I'm well aware that it's nice to have the ability to fight two simultaneous foreign wars, but when you have a finite supply of money you don't get to have everything you want.
Peregrine wrote: So, exactly which country is going to be determined enough to fight to the death even after the loss of their entire land-based military in retaliation for their acts of war against us?
How are they suddenly losing their entire land-based military? Stealth bombers again?
I know the point of commerce raiding. What I'm asking is who wants to do that and what does it gain them. Outside of paranoid right-wing fantasy land countries don't just suddenly decide to deny war materiel and cause discontent among the civilians just because it would be funny.
So you believe all conventional war is over with? There will never be another one, ever?
Interesting.
So what exactly is your plausible scenario where we have a declared war long enough for the escorts to reach their destination and arrange the convoys?
Ah, see, now you've keyed on a reason we have ships all over the globe.
Except it's been made in a world without nuclear weapons, where it was actually possible to fight a total war. In the modern world any kind of invasion or occupation of the US would be impossible, and there's no plausible benefit to launching a suicidal commerce raiding campaign when the only thing you can accomplish long-term is to ensure the destruction of your military.
We'll see, I suppose. Nukes are far from the first weapon to be declared the warfare-ender.
Finally you admit it. Now can we finally get back to discussing whether we can afford that capability? I'm well aware that it's nice to have the ability to fight two simultaneous foreign wars, but when you have a finite supply of money you don't get to have everything you want.
Admit what? I've said from the start that the navy serves a lot of different purposes.
As for whether or not we can afford it? Yes, we can.
The nice part about his scenario is that all it takes for our system to be worthless is for another country to build their own ABS and then we are back to square zero. They can launch at us all they want because they don't have to worry about any of our missiles hiting them on the return, suddenly conventional warfare is back! (let's just pretent it ever went away...)
d-usa wrote: The nice part about his scenario is that all it takes for our system to be worthless is for another country to build their own ABS and then we are back to square zero. They can launch at us all they want because they don't have to worry about any of our missiles hiting them on the return, suddenly conventional warfare is back! (let's just pretent it ever went away...)
Except that's not true at all. ABM stops the rogue nation scenario, which is the context in which it was mentioned. For example, Iran or North Korea simply don't have any realistic chance of saturating a full-scale ABM system and getting something through. Russia or the US, on the other hand, have so many nukes that ABM ceases to be reliable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: How are they suddenly losing their entire land-based military? Stealth bombers again?
Exactly. It's kind of hard to have a military when you can be bombed at will.
So you believe all conventional war is over with? There will never be another one, ever?
Of course not. However, war is much more likely to continue to take the form of a major power trampling some smaller country that nobody cares about, like in Iraq and Afghanistan. A full-scale war between major power is almost inconceivable.
Ah, see, now you've keyed on a reason we have ships all over the globe.
That's not an answer to the question.
We'll see, I suppose. Nukes are far from the first weapon to be declared the warfare-ender.
They are, however, the first weapon that is actually capable of ending human civilization as we know it if they're used.
As for whether or not we can afford it? Yes, we can.
The current obscene level of debt disagrees with you. Or are you one of those people who wants to increase military spending, cut taxes, and magically balance the budget at the same time? Or should we just continue to spend more than we make because having lots of guns is really important?
Seaward wrote: How are they suddenly losing their entire land-based military? Stealth bombers again?
Exactly. It's kind of hard to have a military when you can be bombed at will.
I'm not going to respond to this just yet, I want to make sure you're actually saying...well, what you're actually saying here: the navy is useless, because stealth bombers can take out everyone's standing military. That's what you're saying, right?
Of course not. However, war is much more likely to continue to take the form of a major power trampling some smaller country that nobody cares about, like in Iraq and Afghanistan. A full-scale war between major power is almost inconceivable.
Again, history's replete with examples of folks saying that about...pretty much every major conflict.
That's not an answer to the question.
Yes, it is.
The current obscene level of debt disagrees with you. Or are you one of those people who wants to increase military spending, cut taxes, and magically balance the budget at the same time? Or should we just continue to spend more than we make because having lots of guns is really important?
I'm fine with military spending where it currently is, give or take 5%. I'd like my taxes to be cut, absolutely. As far as balancing the budget, well...the military ain't the only thing the federal government spends lots of money on.
d-usa wrote:Considering how easy it is to stop all wars I am amazed that we are still fighting them.
You peace loving hippie.
You are joking right?
Well, I was mostly talking about the argument being made about how conventional war doesn't exist anymore and we should just make ourselves magically protected from nukes and just threaten everybody else with ours so that they will never attack us again.
Jihadin, what in the name of Dakka is and I quote " goat rope session?"
It was a quote you used earlier. Made me laugh, so I'm going to put it in my signature, as well as MeanGreenStompa's "horse gak" in response to another poster. Good reply.
Ok, so let's take a step back. Peregrine, you're saying that the US navy is largely irrelevant? Ok. And that you have a great system for stopping nukes with a failure rate so low that it's practically 0%? Fair enough. So, the following is perhaps a little unlikely, but not impossible.
Let's say, for argument's sake, that China builds one of these systems and all nukes against it are worthless. And let's say that now it decides that the US, with its lack of a navy and all, is actually pretty weak. It's got all those land-based missiles, and that massive army, sure, so they're not going to take over america. They've just decided to take over the rest of the world because now they're the number one global superpower and now that they have far more money than the US, so their sales to the US are falling. As any economical expert will tell you is a possibility in the future. Perhaps not a certainty, but if America's imports are greater than its exports for too long, it will lose a certain amount of its money. And now China would like to make sure it keeps its power by taking over the world, otherwise it risks going the way of the USA, and of the UK before that, and (a little) in the way of Japan when it started becoming quite powerful. And now Brazil's becoming stronger due to its large quantities of minerals and people, and China wants to remain strong. So it invades everywhere. The US still has a strong enough army to stop the Chinese. But without a navy it can't effectively mobilise its army, and thus can't do very much. See how important a navy might have been in this situation?
Eh, I'm probably about to find out that there's a million and one holes in what I've just written, given that I'm neither a general nor an economist, nor a politician. The point I'm trying to get across, though, is that a navy, however small, might just come in handy in both sides have said anti-nuke systems, given that if this is the case, we are once again forced into the stalemate of a normal war rather than a nuclear one, and in a normal war having a navy is generally rather useful.
Jihadin, what in the name of Dakka is and I quote " goat rope session?"
It was a quote you used earlier. Made me laugh, so I'm going to put it in my signature, as well as MeanGreenStompa's "horse gak" in response to another poster. Good reply.
Crazy Americans...
Notoriously humourus.
You can stop at 1:30
They do this at a bar near my in laws place on Fridays...and at my in laws place.
d-usa wrote: They could have rammed through a bill with a public option in the first month.
That wouldn't have worked. It didn't have enough gimme's in it for Pelosi's liking.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote: To those with the gall to actually post here that we still use horses and bayonets in the military. The point raised by the president was that we no longer need a vast fleet of warships, that aircraft and aircraft carriers changed the entire course of naval warfare in the second half of WW2 and that large fleets have not been relevant since.
Also, stop being pedants.
You're being a bit of the pedant yourself. We had the largest fleet in the history of mankind in WWII, based around said aircraft carriers.
Both arguments are stupid. We need just need satellites equipped with mass drivers, and Captain America.
Are Americans aware of the negative stereotypes about them that are popular in Europe or do they say feth it, let's rope a goat!! Funny stuff.
Do Europeans have no farms or do they all just hang out in bad technobars from the 80s drinking and smoking bad cigarettes like their stereotypes of them that are popular in the US? Funny stuff.
Commerce raiding is a component of warfare that's been around for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
Oh, so not pirates but letters of marque. Oh, okay, then you are being totally sensible. Defence against direct attacks on US shipping is totally a key priority of the modern US navy. You are totally being completely sensible.
I mean, for feth's sake. It's about ensuring US business investments are allowed to operate unimpeded, and that other nations can't play politics by threatening to cut off key US resource inflows. There's nothing wrong with that. All this silliness about protecting US shipping from enemy naval raiding is just being silly.
So stop it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: They do have navies, however, which might suggest those navies are useful for things other than force projection, which is the point currently being argued.
Some of those navies are there primarily to defend against foreign invasion. Where that is the case you see an absence of blue seas capability, and a focus on anti-ship submarines. Which, of course, does not describe the US navy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: The nice part about his scenario is that all it takes for our system to be worthless is for another country to build their own ABS and then we are back to square zero. They can launch at us all they want because they don't have to worry about any of our missiles hiting them on the return, suddenly conventional warfare is back! (let's just pretent it ever went away...)
Well, the 'all it takes' is a really big deal. The US, with a vast economic base and peacetime military R&D spending that is basically unprecedented in history, has had a hell of time developing an ABS that's at all reliable. So the idea of any other country doing it is pretty unlikely in the near future.
The bigger issue with ABS is that it costs a hell of a lot more to shoot down a nuke than it does to build one. So you might spend $50 billion on the capability to shoot down a dozen nukes (or whatever the numbers are) and your rival can just spend a fraction of that on the capability to launch two dozen missile simultaneously. You match that with your ABS capability, and he'll just ramp up his launch capability until, because the numbers are on his side, eventually you'll have to concede.
Commerce raiding is a component of warfare that's been around for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
Oh, so not pirates but letters of marque. Oh, okay, then you are being totally sensible. Defence against direct attacks on US shipping is totally a key priority of the modern US navy. You are totally being completely sensible.
Out of curiosity, do you believe that the German U-boats in WWII were privateers or something?
I mean, for feth's sake. It's about ensuring US business investments are allowed to operate unimpeded, and that other nations can't play politics by threatening to cut off key US resource inflows. There's nothing wrong with that. All this silliness about protecting US shipping from enemy naval raiding is just being silly.
So stop it.
I've said the same several times. My entire point is that the navy fulfills a variety of roles, a suggestion with which you seem to become progressively more enraged.
Seaward wrote: Out of curiosity, do you believe that the German U-boats in WWII were privateers or something?
Out of curiosity, do you understand the the USA is not the UK? That one is a very, very big place, with vast natural resources, while the other is a small island lacking in natural resources, so that an effective anti-shipping campaign can cause its industries to starve. Do you get that? Because once you get that, you begin to understand why the u-boat threat to the UK is just a nonsense when applied to the USA.
And so instead the only possible threat to the US becomes not a starvation of resources, but an attritional war, where ongoing costs and disruption to shipping over time represents a long term drain, not an acute threat. As such, it becomes like the approach taken by the English, French and Spanish during their long naval rivalries.
And is also a very, very silly style of war in the modern age, given the effectiveness of modern weapon platforms, an attritional war aimed at a slow impact on the pocket book is just not viable.
Which you can tell, by the complete absence of anti-merchant ship vessels in the flotilla of any modern navy. Which leads us only to the conclusion that defending against such is not, in any way, anywhere near a serious goal of the present US navy.
I've said the same several times. My entire point is that the navy fulfills a variety of roles, a suggestion with which you seem to become progressively more enraged.
Step back, have a Coke.
I'm not enraged dude. This is funny. What people will convince themselves they have to defend, just to avoid saying they overstated a minor point.
Seriously, the US navy is about putting US air superiority anywhere in the world, to protect US interests outside of the mainland. Nothing wrong with that goal. But there's a lot wrong with pretending it isn't true.
sebster wrote: Out of curiosity, do you understand the the USA is not the UK? That one is a very, very big place, with vast natural resources, while the other is a small island lacking in natural resources, so that an effective anti-shipping campaign can cause its industries to starve. Do you get that? Because once you get that, you begin to understand why the u-boat threat to the UK is just a nonsense when applied to the USA.
And so instead the only possible threat to the US becomes not a starvation of resources, but an attritional war, where ongoing costs and disruption to shipping over time represents a long term drain, not an acute threat. As such, it becomes like the approach taken by the English, French and Spanish during their long naval rivalries.
And is also a very, very silly style of war in the modern age, given the effectiveness of modern weapon platforms, an attritional war aimed at a slow impact on the pocket book is just not viable.
Which you can tell, by the complete absence of anti-merchant ship vessels in the flotilla of any modern navy. Which leads us only to the conclusion that defending against such is not, in any way, anywhere near a serious goal of the present US navy.
There's only so many times I can tell you how wrong you are before it starts to become repetitive. Protection of US commercial assets and related targets is, in fact, among the Navy's many duties. It simply is. In a full-scale conventional war, you're absolutely wrong if you believe merchant shipping would not be targeted. You're absolutely wrong if you believe GOPLATS would not be targeted. You're absolutely wrong if you believe various navigable passages would not be targeted.
Seriously, the US navy is about putting US air superiority anywhere in the world, to protect US interests outside of the mainland. Nothing wrong with that goal. But there's a lot wrong with pretending it isn't true.
Wrong. Our ballistic subs - to use but one example - do not exist to put US air superiority anywhere in the world. They exist for second strike/MAD capabilities.
Seriously, I don't know how many different ways I can say this. The US Navy has a lot of different roles. It performs a lot of different tasks and missions. Trying to claim they have one and only one focus is so remarkably incorrect I'm almost impressed that you're sticking with the claim this long.
d-usa wrote: U-boats sinking US ships got us dragged into one of the wars didn't it?
Well one of the major incidents that got us into WW1 was the sinking of the RMS Lusitania with 135 American passengers on board by a German U-boat. Hitler's wolf packs during the Battle of the North Atlantic also found great combat success throughout the course of the war, 3,500 merchant ships and 175 warships were sunk for the loss of 783 U-boats.
d-usa wrote: U-boats sinking US ships got us dragged into one of the wars didn't it?
Well one of the major incidents that got us into WW1 was the sinking of the RMS Lusitania with 135 American passengers on board by a German U-boat. Hitler's wolf packs during the Battle of the North Atlantic also found great combat success throughout the course of the war, 3,500 merchant ships and 175 warships were sunk for the loss of 783 U-boats.
Seaward wrote: I'm not going to respond to this just yet, I want to make sure you're actually saying...well, what you're actually saying here: the navy is useless, because stealth bombers can take out everyone's standing military. That's what you're saying, right?
No, I'm saying that your hypothetical anti-US commerce raiding campaign is just a paranoid fantasy. Even without a navy the US has ways of retaliating and inflicting enough damage on the enemy to make the price of a commerce raiding campaign way too high to be appealing. And outside of right-wing fantasy land when a strategy accomplishes nothing and carries a severe cost nobody is going to attempt it.
I'm fine with military spending where it currently is, give or take 5%. I'd like my taxes to be cut, absolutely. As far as balancing the budget, well...the military ain't the only thing the federal government spends lots of money on.
No, but the military is certainly the place where funding can be most easily cut without giving up anything.
Seaward wrote: In a full-scale conventional war, you're absolutely wrong if you believe merchant shipping would not be targeted.
So are you ever going to get around to giving a plausible scenario for how a full-scale war is going to happen, or are you just going to keep insisting that we spend ourselves deeper and deeper into debt because "they hate us for our freedom" and everyone is lining up to make suicide attacks on the US if we lower our defenses for even a moment?
Seriously, I don't know how many different ways I can say this. The US Navy has a lot of different roles. It performs a lot of different tasks and missions. Trying to claim they have one and only one focus is so remarkably incorrect I'm almost impressed that you're sticking with the claim this long.
It may have many smaller roles, but its primary role by far is force projection and the ability to fight foreign wars.
Peregrine wrote: No, I'm saying that your hypothetical anti-US commerce raiding campaign is just a paranoid fantasy. Even without a navy the US has ways of retaliating and inflicting enough damage on the enemy to make the price of a commerce raiding campaign way too high to be appealing. And outside of right-wing fantasy land when a strategy accomplishes nothing and carries a severe cost nobody is going to attempt it.
Why do you keep referring to me as a right-winger, out of curiosity? I don't know a lot of Kerry/Obama voters who've earned that moniker. Is it because I have more experience with this stuff?
Again, all I can say is that you simply do not know the Navy's myriad roles, nor even, apparently, the ones it's played in pretty much every conflict we've been involved in since the founding of the country. You also seem to have some pretty bizarre notions about the capabilities of the other branches. I'm not sure where this absolute certainty in your all-encompassing assumptions about the way the military operates and what it's capable of comes from, but it isn't reality.
No, but the military is certainly the place where funding can be most easily cut without giving up anything.
Well, that's just plain wrong.
So are you ever going to get around to giving a plausible scenario for how a full-scale war is going to happen, or are you just going to keep insisting that we spend ourselves deeper and deeper into debt because "they hate us for our freedom" and everyone is lining up to make suicide attacks on the US if we lower our defenses for even a moment?
Is the military - and, specifically, the navy - the only thing spending us deeper and deeper into debt? No? Has our debt increased in the last four years despite military spending cuts? Yes? Have I ever once in this thread mentioned the phrase "they hate us for our freedom"? No. Do you have any other strawmen you'd like to throw?
Frankly, I wouldn't think, "Europe goes to war because one man gets shot," would have sounded like a plausible scenario if you'd told it to me in 1905, but there you go. I don't believe we've seen the end of conventional warfare. You do, yet you're curiously loathe to admit it. I'm not sure why.
It may have many smaller roles, but its primary role by far is force projection and the ability to fight foreign wars.
So we should focus on domestic wars? Arming up for when the South rises again?
Honestly, that's not sounding like such a bad idea the longer this conversation goes on.
Force projection exists for defense, incidentally.
Seaward wrote: Why do you keep referring to me as a right-winger, out of curiosity? I don't know a lot of Kerry/Obama voters who've earned that moniker. Is it because I have more experience within the military than you?
No, it's because you share the right-wing attitude that we're constantly in danger of being attacked out of nowhere and the only thing keeping us safe is having a military bigger than everyone else combined.
Well, that's just plain wrong.
Only if you value the ability to fight multiple simultaneous foreign wars. I don't, so the military budget could be cut significantly without losing anything.
Is the military - and, specifically, the navy - the only thing spending us deeper and deeper into debt? No? Has our debt increased in the last four years despite military spending cuts? Yes?
Of course the military isn't the only thing responsible, however it's a major factor in why we're in debt, and any plausible attempt at balancing the budget is going to require massive cuts in military spending.
Frankly, I wouldn't think, "Europe goes to war because one man gets shot," would have sounded like a plausible scenario if you'd told it to me in 1905, but there you go. I don't believe we've seen the end of conventional warfare. You do, yet you're curiously loathe to admit it. I'm not sure why.
Of course it wouldn't seem like a plausible scenario, because that's not what happened. The reasons for WWI were a lot more complicated than "one man gets shot", and the assassination did little more than provide an excuse to start the war that everyone knew was inevitable.
So we should focus on domestic wars? Arming up for when the South rises again?
No, we should accept that, as nice as it is to have the ability to fight multiple simultaneous foreign wars, it's a capability we can't afford and limit the military to a sustainable spending level focused entirely on self defense.
Force projection exists for defense, incidentally.
Yeah, it's just horrible to imagine how utterly our civilization would have been destroyed if we hadn't been able to occupy Iraq and stop their invasion plans...
Seaward wrote: Why do you keep referring to me as a right-winger, out of curiosity? I don't know a lot of Kerry/Obama voters who've earned that moniker. Is it because I have more experience within the military than you?
No, it's because you share the right-wing attitude that we're constantly in danger of being attacked out of nowhere and the only thing keeping us safe is having a military bigger than everyone else combined.
Wait, isn't your attitude that we're constantly in danger of being attacked out of nowhere and the only thing keeping us safe is having an imaginary fool proof ABS and more nuclear weapons than anybody else?
Peregrine wrote: No, it's because you share the right-wing attitude that we're constantly in danger of being attacked out of nowhere and the only thing keeping us safe is having a military bigger than everyone else combined.
I do not, actually.
I do not think waiting until we are in danger to start building a military is a good idea.
Only if you value the ability to fight multiple simultaneous foreign wars. I don't, so the military budget could be cut significantly without losing anything.
I value that capability quite a bit.
Of course the military isn't the only thing responsible, however it's a major factor in why we're in debt.
Along with quite a few others.
No, we should accept that, as nice as it is to have the ability to fight multiple simultaneous foreign wars, it's a capability we can't afford and limit the military to a sustainable spending level focused entirely on self defense.
We can indeed afford it. We can even afford it without getting rid of programs you like and I despise. We cannot afford to do it while increasing spending for programs you like and I despise.
Yeah, it's just horrible to imagine how utterly our civilization would have been destroyed if we hadn't been able to occupy Iraq and stop their invasion plans...
I don't buy into the notion that a threat must be capable of destroying our civilization before we're allowed to take military action against it. That seems a poor way of managing risk and protecting lives and assets.
Your posts here disagree with that statement. For example, your claims about a hypothetical commerce raiding campaign that is never going to happen.
I do not think waiting until we are in danger to start building a military is a good idea.
Good thing nobody is suggesting completely eliminating the military. However, military spending is WAY beyond any plausible need for self defense.
We can indeed afford it. We can even afford it without getting rid of programs you like and I despise. We cannot afford to do it while increasing spending for programs you like and I despise.
The math disagrees with you, unless you're planning on raising taxes to a level that would result in every incumbent being voted out of office and replaced by people who would immediately repeal the increase (IOW, it's not going to happen).
I don't buy into the notion that a threat must be capable of destroying our civilization before we're allowed to take military action against it. That seems a poor way of managing risk and protecting lives and assets.
Except Iraq was not a threat at all. I'm sure it's nice to have the ability to preemptively eliminate anyone who could possibly someday maybe be a slight threat, but every other nation gets by without it, and I really don't see why the US is so special that we can't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Wait, isn't your attitude that we're constantly in danger of being attacked out of nowhere and the only thing keeping us safe is having an imaginary fool proof ABS and more nuclear weapons than anybody else?
Err, no, my attitude is that we aren't in danger of nuclear attack, and the solution to a "rogue state" threat like Iran is to continue to invest in ABM, not to out-spend the entire rest of the world on building a conventional military capable of occupying Iran without inconveniencing our occupation of Afghanistan.
I'd rather we start dropping the military budget on our strategic nuclear resources before anything else in the budget. Have you seem how much those useless fething things cost? Least a shiny new aircraft carrier gets used.
d-usa wrote: Other than "nobody is able to attack us anyway, so why bother"?
Why impose that limit? Nobody is able to attack us even with a greatly reduced military, so out-spending the entire rest of the world on defending against an imaginary threat is just paranoia.
Peregrine wrote: Your posts here disagree with that statement. For example, your claims about a hypothetical commerce raiding campaign that is never going to happen.
When did I claim anything about a hypothetical commerce raiding campaign? I said that part of the Navy's job is to protect US commercial shipping when necessary. You and sebster then tag-teamed your way into saying that American commercial vessels will simply never be attacked, full-scale conventional war or not.
Good thing nobody is suggesting completely eliminating the military. However, military spending is WAY beyond any plausible need for self defense.
Just an entire branch of it.
The math disagrees with you, unless you're planning on raising taxes to a level that would result in every incumbent being voted out of office and replaced by people who would immediately repeal the increase (IOW, it's not going to happen).
It doesn't, actually, unless you genuinely do love every single thing the federal government spends money on except for the military. There's an awful lot of fat in our budget.
Except Iraq was not a threat at all. I'm sure it's nice to have the ability to preemptively eliminate anyone who could possibly someday maybe be a slight threat, but every other nation gets by without it, and I really don't see why the US is so special that we can't.
Iraq actually was a threat. It was not a threat on the scale it was said to be by the Bush administration, but a threat? Certainly. Worthy of intervention? Not in my opinion. You sarcastically said they would have destroyed our civilization had we not stopped their invasion plans - which implies to me that such is your threshold for self-defensive action. If it isn't, then, surprise surprise, you believe in force projection and preemptive military action, too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Why impose that limit? Nobody is able to attack us even with a greatly reduced military, so out-spending the entire rest of the world on defending against an imaginary threat is just paranoia.
Why are they not able to attack us with a greatly reduced military, out of curiosity?
Peregrine wrote: Why impose that limit? Nobody is able to attack us even with a greatly reduced military, so out-spending the entire rest of the world on defending against an imaginary threat is just paranoia.
Why are they not able to attack us with a greatly reduced military, out of curiosity?
There is a big giant ocean between us and everybody else, and no way for anybody to use the small jump from eastern Russia, or South America of course.
And it sounds like it is probably okay for the rest of the world to kill each other and fight wars since they can never attack us and we should just become isolationists because even if the rest of the world is at war it will not affect us at all.
Seaward wrote: When did I claim anything about a hypothetical commerce raiding campaign? I said that part of the Navy's job is to protect US commercial shipping when necessary.
And the point is there's no plausible scenario where it's necessary.
It doesn't, actually, unless you genuinely do love every single thing the federal government spends money on except for the military. There's an awful lot of fat in our budget.
Sure there's other places to make cuts, and maybe you could balance it in theory without cutting military spending, but in the real world you're never going to get a balanced budget without cutting military spending.
You sarcastically said they would have destroyed our civilization had we not stopped their invasion plans - which implies to me that such is your threshold for self-defensive action. If it isn't, then, surprise surprise, you believe in force projection and preemptive military action, too.
Of course I believe in preemptive military action in the case of a legitimate threat. The point is that there is no plausible scenario where there's a legitimate threat.
Why are they not able to attack us with a greatly reduced military, out of curiosity?
Because there's no plausible scenario where launching an attack accomplishes any meaningful strategic objective, especially once you factor in the costs of the attack and inevitable retaliation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: There is a big giant ocean between us and everybody else, and no way for anybody to use the small jump from eastern Russia, or South America of course.
Sorry, but any invasion plan that starts with "invade Russia to get to the US" is best left for bad movie plots. Likewise for a threat coming from South America.
(Of course it would be pretty amusing if someone did invade Alaska like that, we could start a betting pool on whether the US military would be able to get there and throw them out before the weather and hostile terrain did it.)
And it sounds like it is probably okay for the rest of the world to kill each other and fight wars since they can never attack us and we should just become isolationists because even if the rest of the world is at war it will not affect us at all.
And yet somehow every other country manages to get by without the ability to intervene in any country that does something they don't like. Why is the US special?
Every other country still has force projection capabilities. We might be the biggest player in Afghanistan, but we are not the only player there.
As much as I support military budget cuts, I am glad that the person with the finger in his ears going "nanananananana, nobody can ever attack us, nanananana" is not the one making the decisions here.
Peregrine wrote: And the point is there's no plausible scenario where it's necessary.
So nobody ever attacks American shipping?
Sure there's other places to make cuts, and maybe you could balance it in theory without cutting military spending, but in the real world you're never going to get a balanced budget without cutting military spending.
Okay. Why does cutting military spending equate, in your mind, to getting rid of the Navy?
Of course I believe in preemptive military action in the case of a legitimate threat. The point is that there is no plausible scenario where there's a legitimate threat.
Really? What are your thoughts on Afghanistan? How 'bout the operations we're currently launching from Lemonnier in Djibouti?
Because there's no plausible scenario where launching an attack accomplishes any meaningful strategic objective, especially once you factor in the costs of the attack and inevitable retaliation.
I think 9/11 kind of proves you wrong there.
And yet somehow every other country manages to get by without the ability to intervene in any country that does something they don't like. Why is the US special?
Because we're the ones the rest of the Western world expects to handle that sort of stuff.
If you look at the overall situation, Russia and China have no force projection abilities except around their borders.
The UK and France have force projection capabilities which have been used e.g. in Chad, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan in recent years.
The ability to project force is based on various factors such as light mobile forces, heavy airlift planes, overseas bases, naval forces and transports, ports, and friendly allies who can provide bases and ports if you do not have your own.
Yeah, they are limited. And I think a traditional military attack against the USA is very unlikely. But I wouldn't call it impossible and base our military planning on a mindset that "nobody could attack us anyway".
I am probably somewhere between Peregrine and Seaward with my position.
Well, mostly because I don't know how big a navy you think we need.
I do firmly believe we need one, how else will we keep the whales and dolphins from taking over the world.
You're on Team Seaward, then, as the argument is between a guy who believes we do need a navy, and a guy who believes we do not because, to quote, "we never use it for defense, only offense."
Man the De Gaulle looks a lot bigger top down next to a Nimitz than it does in actual fleet pics.
Also why are the top and bottom carrier.the same, someting not quite right. Yes, yes I am nit picking.
Decided to go with the Halloween theme (and throw in X-Men).
but can't risk the idea he'll continue to spend, and fail to work with Republicans. How do you think "horses and bayonets" will play after the election? What happened to the positive man I voted for? The buck has to stop with him... he has done OK, even well, but he is complicit in the demonizing of the "other side", and gridlock, and I think moderate Romney (the only kind of rep I'd consider, same for dems) will get more done in the coming 4 years. Obama will only do so if he sweeps Congress. And that's been incredibly disappointing to me as an independent voter of his.
