Pithy comment, LittleStatistEva. Stupid, but pithy. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuyGlad you were able to understand it. Little Trumpazoid.
- i'va biggen
- 05-24-2016, 07:29 AM
- DSK
- 05-24-2016, 07:35 AM
- DSK
- 05-24-2016, 07:37 AM
- Chung Tran
- 05-24-2016, 08:30 AM
Like Obama would do anything other than get on his knees and suck a little Chinese dick. Biggest pussy to ever serve is not going to threaten China with anything other than a college lecture, if that. Originally Posted by nwarounderI'm afraid this is correct.. Obama wants to be a "friend" to Governments around the world, but he doesn't require anything.. he lets China "beat us in trade", as Trump would say; Obama whined for a moment when China devalued its currency.. then did nothing about it. China is not afraid of Obama at all.. why should it be?
meanwhile, Obama and the Democrats pay lip service to human rights, but ultimately don't really care.. Facebook was blocked shortly before Obama's visit, protesters were locked up.. Churches are routinely raided and closed.. Police extract bribes and payoffs from ordinary Vietnamese on a daily basis.
- Prolongus
- 05-24-2016, 09:52 AM
We're all on one planet here and we aren't going anywhere. Why not reach out...if anything, the defense industry here now has more business. Obama is done, anyway. We'll see what the next administration does with opening up Vietnam, Cuba, etc.
There are issues, problems and difficulties associated with this but...I'm a glass half-full guy. Give it a chance. Are we REALLY fucking up anything? Nah.
There are issues, problems and difficulties associated with this but...I'm a glass half-full guy. Give it a chance. Are we REALLY fucking up anything? Nah.
- DSK
- 05-24-2016, 01:25 PM
We're all on one planet here and we aren't going anywhere. Why not reach out...if anything, the defense industry here now has more business. Obama is done, anyway. We'll see what the next administration does with opening up Vietnam, Cuba, etc.The defense industry has plenty of business, but it is propped up by our tax dollars and money printing. We are chumps to pay for everyone's defense.
There are issues, problems and difficulties associated with this but...I'm a glass half-full guy. Give it a chance. Are we REALLY fucking up anything? Nah. Originally Posted by Prolongus
Why not make them pay for it, or leave them to the sharks?
- Prolongus
- 05-24-2016, 02:34 PM
The defense industry has plenty of business, but it is propped up by our tax dollars and money printing. We are chumps to pay for everyone's defense.Didn't know you were privy to how the defense industry works...? So if Vietnam wants a few F-35 Lighting II jets we're just gonna...give them away?
Why not make them pay for it, or leave them to the sharks? Originally Posted by DSK
- i'va biggen
- 05-24-2016, 04:40 PM
Didn't know you were privy to how the defense industry works...? So if Vietnam wants a few F-35 Lighting II jets we're just gonna...give them away? Originally Posted by Prolongushttp://www.cnn.com/2016/05/24/politi...ide/index.html
- lustylad
- 05-24-2016, 05:19 PM
Bernie and the Cut-the-Military Brigade
U.S. defense spending as a share of GDP is modest, but you wouldn’t know it from critics who distort reality.
By Daniel Katz
May 22, 2016 4:48 p.m. ET
The U.S. Marine Corps recently revealed that 70% of its F/A-18 jet fighters aren’t flight-worthy. For years military leaders have warned that their budgets are insufficient. But when they request increases, the anti-defense crowd claims military spending is more than adequate, citing comparisons with other nations or previous eras. These arguments are specious.
Bernie Sanders says the U.S. spends more on defense than the “next nine countries combined.” The correct number is actually six, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Last year Washington spent $596 billion. No. 2 was China at $215 billion. No. 3 was Russia at $91 billion. You might hear lower numbers—$145 billion for Beijing and $66 billion for Moscow—but these are misleading. China’s official figures don’t include several spending categories, such as arms imports. The lower Russian number is its 2015 budget at 2015’s exchange rate. That rate plummeted in 2014, but Russia pays for its military in rubles so the 2014 rate better represents the country’s military funding.
Therefore, in 2015 the U.S. spent a little under twice what its two “near-peer” adversaries spent. That might be plenty, if China and Russia were America’s only national-security threats and located nearby. But the U.S. is also fighting jihadists with thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with dozens of drones and special-operations teams throughout the Middle East—while also contending with Iran and North Korea.
Another tactic of the anti-defense crowd is to emphasize the 41% growth in military spending since 9/11. The fact is 2001’s spending, as a percentage of GDP, was at a historically low 2.9%, compared with 34.5% during World War II, 11.7% during the Korean War, 8.9% during Vietnam and 6% during the Reagan presidency. Even at the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, defense spending reached only 4.7%. In 2015 it was back down to 3.3%.
U.S. defense spending has grown 41% since Sept. 10, 2001. But in that time Russia and China have increased spending by 267% and terrorists brought down the World Trade Center. Perhaps 41% isn’t enough. A little-noted fact: The 2015 budget was $120 billion less than planned. In 2010 the Defense Department projected the 2015 base budget—the portion that doesn’t cover current wars—at $616 billion. Instead, it was $496 billion. Had the 2010 plan held, defense spending would have been 4% of GDP last year.
But isn’t defense spending driving the budget deficit? Not really. Defense as a percentage of federal spending is also at a post-World War II low. It accounted for 16% in 2015, 25% under Reagan, 50% under Eisenhower and over 80% during World War II. The projection for 2017 is 14.9%.
Despite what Mr. Sanders and the anti-defense brigade would have you believe, America is getting its security—in an increasingly insecure world—at record low cost.
Mr. Katz is the director for defense analysis at Aviation Week Intelligence and Data Services. He previously served in the Defense Department and in the U.S. Army’s special forces.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/bernie-a...ade-1463950087
U.S. defense spending as a share of GDP is modest, but you wouldn’t know it from critics who distort reality.
By Daniel Katz
May 22, 2016 4:48 p.m. ET
The U.S. Marine Corps recently revealed that 70% of its F/A-18 jet fighters aren’t flight-worthy. For years military leaders have warned that their budgets are insufficient. But when they request increases, the anti-defense crowd claims military spending is more than adequate, citing comparisons with other nations or previous eras. These arguments are specious.
Bernie Sanders says the U.S. spends more on defense than the “next nine countries combined.” The correct number is actually six, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Last year Washington spent $596 billion. No. 2 was China at $215 billion. No. 3 was Russia at $91 billion. You might hear lower numbers—$145 billion for Beijing and $66 billion for Moscow—but these are misleading. China’s official figures don’t include several spending categories, such as arms imports. The lower Russian number is its 2015 budget at 2015’s exchange rate. That rate plummeted in 2014, but Russia pays for its military in rubles so the 2014 rate better represents the country’s military funding.
Therefore, in 2015 the U.S. spent a little under twice what its two “near-peer” adversaries spent. That might be plenty, if China and Russia were America’s only national-security threats and located nearby. But the U.S. is also fighting jihadists with thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with dozens of drones and special-operations teams throughout the Middle East—while also contending with Iran and North Korea.
Another tactic of the anti-defense crowd is to emphasize the 41% growth in military spending since 9/11. The fact is 2001’s spending, as a percentage of GDP, was at a historically low 2.9%, compared with 34.5% during World War II, 11.7% during the Korean War, 8.9% during Vietnam and 6% during the Reagan presidency. Even at the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, defense spending reached only 4.7%. In 2015 it was back down to 3.3%.
U.S. defense spending has grown 41% since Sept. 10, 2001. But in that time Russia and China have increased spending by 267% and terrorists brought down the World Trade Center. Perhaps 41% isn’t enough. A little-noted fact: The 2015 budget was $120 billion less than planned. In 2010 the Defense Department projected the 2015 base budget—the portion that doesn’t cover current wars—at $616 billion. Instead, it was $496 billion. Had the 2010 plan held, defense spending would have been 4% of GDP last year.
But isn’t defense spending driving the budget deficit? Not really. Defense as a percentage of federal spending is also at a post-World War II low. It accounted for 16% in 2015, 25% under Reagan, 50% under Eisenhower and over 80% during World War II. The projection for 2017 is 14.9%.
Despite what Mr. Sanders and the anti-defense brigade would have you believe, America is getting its security—in an increasingly insecure world—at record low cost.
Mr. Katz is the director for defense analysis at Aviation Week Intelligence and Data Services. He previously served in the Defense Department and in the U.S. Army’s special forces.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/bernie-a...ade-1463950087
- The_Waco_Kid
- 05-24-2016, 06:12 PM
Obama already got rid of any general that disagreed w him. Originally Posted by goodman0422he purged some generals. but i don't believe he has stacked the Joint Chiefs with pussies. the president nominates officers to general or admiral ranks but Congress confirms them.
We got "something" in exchange for the weapons ban lift:and they don't. maritime law says they don't. for China to claim all of the South China sea as their territorial waters is a clear violation of established doctrine.
U.S. ships can now port in Vietnam. This is a signal to China that it is not going to own that part of the ocean. Originally Posted by Prolongus
territorial waters only extend 12 nm from the coastline of any country. yes there is a 200 nm economic zone but that's not the same as territorial coastline.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters
what China is attempting to do in the South China Sea is completely illegal.
Like Obama would do anything other than get on his knees and suck a little Chinese dick. Biggest pussy to ever serve is not going to threaten China with anything other than a college lecture, if that. Originally Posted by nwarounderthe first gay president will suck any cock to embarrass America, disgusting!
- Yssup Rider
- 05-24-2016, 06:27 PM
How do you assholes live from day to day? Do you know how stupid you sound?
- JD Barleycorn
- 05-24-2016, 06:35 PM
We got "something" in exchange for the weapons ban lift:
U.S. ships can now port in Vietnam. This is a signal to China that it is not going to own that part of the ocean. Originally Posted by Prolongus
What ships? Our navy is getting smaller with each passing year. They are spending billions of dollars on one ship. They make grandious plans about 30 ships in a class and end up building 3....all experimental. Experiments are great but only after you have the working class ships that can take the fight to the enemy. We don't even have the manpower anymore to keep the older ships in commission.
I mean it's really great to build a brand spanking new, high tech, floating fighting machine with all the bells and whistles but what about the crew? Several years ago I had an opportunity to tour a very modern Dutch ship (The De Ruyter). She was very clean, very high tech, and very automated. They were 2,000 tons larger than my ship but had half the crew. Many of us were very curious about how they would repair battle damage and keep fighting. They told us that they had automated pumps to dewater and automated fire fighting to put out fires. Yes, but what happens if all this is going on at the same time and you lose electrical power? Ahhh, we're not prepared for that.
We need to get back to the concept of a 300 ship navy if not the Reagan 600 ship navy even if the ships are less expensive and less technologically advanced. The ship has to survive to use those Buck Roger toys on the enemy.
- The_Waco_Kid
- 05-24-2016, 06:44 PM
The defense industry has plenty of business, but it is propped up by our tax dollars and money printing. We are chumps to pay for everyone's defense.we are printing money, but that's a Fed Reserve topic (sic) our taxes go for our defense not other nations.
Why not make them pay for it, or leave them to the sharks? Originally Posted by DSK
Didn't know you were privy to how the defense industry works...? So if Vietnam wants a few F-35 Lighting II jets we're just gonna...give them away? Originally Posted by Prolongusi'm sure Lockheed and Boeing and Northrup and Raytheon make handsome profit margins on their foreign weapons sales.
Raytheon just came out with a upgrade program for the M60 Patton tank, while no longer used in the US by the Army or Marines, it's still a staple of many other nation's armies.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...-killing-16142
the M60 was an excellent main battle tank for it's day, the precursor of the M1A1 Abrams. one of Raytheon's upgrades to the M60 is the 120mm Abrams gun. while this in general gives an upgraded M60 the punch of an Abrams, the Abrams is still far superior. it's much faster, it has superior fire control and accuracy, which means far more in battle.
there are 5 world class main battle tanks today. and that's taking Russia's new Armada tank at a glance to be the equal of the Abrams. and Russia is way late to the game and has nowhere near ans many state of the art tanks as the US. the other 3 are our allies.
Russia's new Armada tank, while impressive on paper is untested in battle, unlike the M1A1 Abrams and the British Challenger 2. both of with showed their prowess in the Iraq wars.
the German Leopard 2 and French AMX Leclerc are also considered equals to the M1A1 and Challenger 2.
Some would consider the German Leopard 2 the best of breed. we'd have to see in real combat. but it is a world class main battle tank.
- CuteOldGuy
- 05-24-2016, 06:45 PM
Maybe if we quit fighting stupid wars, paying contractors ridiculous money to do soldier work, and took our government back from Wall Street and the defense industry, we could have a strong defense within our ability to pay for it.
- The_Waco_Kid
- 05-24-2016, 06:46 PM