"Our military is simply too small to do everything that is being asked of it."

Are you aware that our current 285 ships can carry out the duties of 600 ships from just a few years ago? Actually it was you, BigLouse, that tried to equate 285 present day vessels with the nearly 7,000 vessels employed during WWII.
Romney has proposed increasing the Navy to more than 300 ships from the current fleet size of 285 ships. A Defense official pointed out today that the Navy’s 30 year shipbuilding plan presented to Congress earlier this year will result in 300 ships by 2019. [ So in other words Romney just promised what was already requested.] Actually an Odumbo appointee claims 300 ships are adequate, and you've already acknowledged the U.S. doesn't have 300 ships. The Navy wants at least 310 vessels. The legislatively-mandated review of DoD strategy and priorities by the quadrennial defense review panel, which Romney cites, says Odumbo's current op-tempo requires 346 vessels.

However, the official also said that while numbers are important when talking about a globally deployed Navy it’s important to look beyond the numbers at a ship’s capabilities when it’s deployed.

“When you look at an Arliegh Burke Class destroyer it’s missile defense capable, it can fire cruise missiles, it can conduct anti-submarine warfare, it has a gun on front for anti-surface warfare. It can patrol the coast of not only the U.S. but off the coast of other countries. That’s a pretty capable platform,” the official said. Actually it can patrol "A" -- "singular" -- coast; not widely disparate coasts.

Adding that these destroyers can also carry helicopters the official said, “It’s not single use, that’s been the evolution of not just the Navy but of our platforms as well.”

The official said today’s ships can carry out the capabilities of the 600 ship Navy envisioned by the Reagan administration.Even so, the legislatively-mandated review of DoD strategy and priorities by the quadrennial defense review panel, which Romney cites, says Odumbo's current op-tempo requires 346 vessels: not 300 and certainly not the 285 that are actually on-hand for service. Originally Posted by BigLouie

.

How about an argument over something real. You are seriously a dipshit, IBCrying.

You'd rather argue over details than concepts.

No wonder you're so highly regarded among the dipshit community.

Nobody represents the dipshit community better than you, Assup. You should be proud!

More dribbling bullshit-blather from the pile of bullshit AKA Assup! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

.

The trouble is that the guys probably are to. . . Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Back when I was a republican it seemed like the only way a democratic president could stimulate the economy was a war. Originally Posted by ekim008

I'm trying to recall (in my life time) a Democratic President who started a war ... for any reason.....unless one can define the recent engagement in Libya as a war ... but that skirmish had already begun prior to the injection of U.S. force.

Lincoln was a Republican.

hahahahahahahahahahahahah

I'm trying to recall (in my life time) a Democratic President who started a war ... for any reason.....unless one can define the recent engagement in Libya as a war ... but that skirmish had already begun prior to the injection of U.S. force.

Lincoln was a Republican. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Viet Nam?

The central truth is in the latter part of the statement. The military is being asked to do more than it should be. The military should not be asked to be world's disaster relief agency, it's food distribution agency, it's police force. Nor should it be asked to proselytize democracy around the world.

The military is designed to do two things, kill people and break things, anything else dilutes it capabilities and endangers our people needlessly. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

+1.....and I would add, we should have more smaller wars, no nation building....some country acts up, we fuck them up.....when they know we are coming, they will learn to behave......

Viet Nam? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Nope. When Kennedy was sworn (elected also) there were about 8500 "advisors" on the ground in SE Asia ... and there was one carrier group flying sorties off the coast.

Eisenhower.

Men who are cowards despise bravery in others. That's why they want a small military. They don't like their cowardice to stick out like a sore thumb.......

Big is not necessarily better. Ask Goliath.

Big is not necessarily better. Ask Goliath. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Goliath? WTF? That was mono-a-mono......bigger is better.....don't be disingenuous....of coarse, you're the guy who thinks there is no difference between Odumbo and Romney.....you are a worthless piece of shit....is there one person in this world who is better off because you exist?

OK COG, when did you support what Obama has done (and supporting something he did doesn't necessarily make you an Obama supporter, but that is OK with me)?

My big beef with the military spending is twofold:

#1 Nearly half our of defense spending goes to cost overruns on weapons systems (many of which are leftovers from the Cold War era in some way) due to a terrible procurement and systems engineering process in the DoD. The big defense contractors don't want to change this and lobby against it strongly. If we need to spend $300 Billion a year (subsidy) to keep all of them in business, then just put it down to that on the budget and have them build something useful that will boost the economy rather than building weapons that often don't work and constantly changing the specifications. This is well documented (the overruns and bad SE process) and the defense budget could easily accept the sequestration cuts and much more if we got this fixed. Defense Spending has gone up roughly 50% since 9/11 so now we will soon be out of both wars (paying for the wars off the books was out of line in my book too - maybe for a year, but not for 10 years) and no real need to spend so much IMHO.

#2 Starting wars in many places often go by the Pottery Barn Rule, of "you broke it, you buy it" and we really don't need any more of those, nor can we afford them (in ways broader than money) if we can help it. They are incredibly costly and our military does a fabulous job of winning the battles and wars in most cases but just isn't equipped (if anyone is) to rebuild a country's institutions and infrastructure if it is even possible in many cases. This whole scenario is fraught with difficulty and danger. I don't think there has really been a successful military occupation anywhere (imperial type) in the world since the early 20th century because of popular fronts and guerrilla tactics. We don't need to get involved unless there is a clear exit strategy (a good one) or compelling humanitarian reasons and preferably both. Genocide is a good one and most experts agree that a regiment or a brigade (even the French one that was there at the time) could have saved most of a million lives in Rwanda without long term commitment. We have two big oceans and friendly small countries to the north and south so IMHO we should tail off being the policeman of the world (seas is OK because shipping is vital for global commerce - planes can fly around most places that are dangerous) and not get involved in any more wars with boots on the ground, especially in the Middle East. There are easier and cheaper ways to achieve our national goals with respect to other countries and war should be a last resort since always lots and lots of innocents get killed one way or the other.

Education, research and an employed work force are the defense of the 21st century IMHO and that is where we should spend our funds if at all possible.

I supported Obama on the DREAM Act, although I questioned his methods, but it was a good plan. There were some other things as well, but they were long ago, and I can't remember, but I know there were three or four threads I started praising Obama.

I think our military costs too much because we are asking them to do too much. We don't need bases all over the globe, especially in countries that can take care of themselves. That and the waste inherent in the system with cost overruns, like you said, and buying equipment we don't need because it will be built in some Congressman's district. It's ridiculous.