Chicken hawks using military for political purposes

[bud]

it's funny watching some of you trying to make fun of one political whore while defending another.

obama, romney, biden and ryan are all prostitutes. under the election system in u.s., there is no other way for these people to come to power. without the millions being given to them by corporations and extremely wealthy businessmen, who all have an agenda, they do not have a chance in succeeding.

[Guest American Woman]

it's funny watching some of you trying to make fun of one political whore while defending another.

obama, romney, biden and ryan are all prostitutes. under the election system in u.s., there is no other way for these people to come to power. without the millions being given to them by corporations and extremely wealthy businessmen, who all have an agenda, they do not have a chance in succeeding.

So delighted to see that you managed to find some time to tear away from your main pastime of bashing Israel to give some time to your second favorite topic - bashing the U.S. Always good to see the defender of a government that includes leadership by the likes of Hamas criticize U.S. elections.

[BubberMiley]

Bashing the U.S.? Really? That's considered bashing?

[Shady]

So delighted to see that you managed to find some time to tear away from your main pastime of bashing Israel to give some time to your second favorite topic - bashing the U.S. Always good to see the defender of a government that includes leadership by the likes of Hamas criticize U.S. elections.

Sounds like he has some type of agenda!

[Guest American Woman]

I thought it interesting that the Republican candidates for POTUS and VP used the backdrop of a navy ship to announce the VP. What was interesting is the lack of any military experience from these two politicians using the military in this way. And the lack of reporting of this issue, especially with Romney managing to avoid the draft during Nam.

All political candidates "use" situations to their advantage - while appealing to Americans of all stripes. One could feel that avoiding any reference to the military would be disrespectful to those serving. If elected, Romney will be Commander in Chief, so I see it as fitting of the occasion.

As for their not serving, I don't believe they tried to present the occasion as anything other than what it was - did they try to make it appear as if they had served? To my knowledge, they didn't. But as I said, the POTUS is Commander in Chief, and I would hope he wouldn't base his decisions in that area on his personal service record.

If these were Democrats using the military in this way, i think the backlash would have been profound.

Could be. Both sides seem to criticize the other over things that both sides do.

Edited August 18, 2012 by American Woman

[Guest Derek L]

I couldn’t find the topic in which I posted the planned early retirement of a dozen or so USN cruisers and amphibious landing ships without replacement by the Obama administration, nor do I remember the thread in which we discussed the economic impact of downsizing the fleet and slowing replacements (Namely in Newport News Virginia) so I decided to post here:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121007/DEFREG02/310070001/Mitt-Romney-8217-s-Big-Plans-U-S-Navy?odyssey=tab

Republican Mitt Romney’s campaign has steered clear of providing too many specifics when it comes to how he would govern as president.

Defense has been no exception. While Romney and other campaign officials have pledged to raise the number of ships built per year from nine to “approximately 15,” aimed at a fleet of about 350 ships, specifics on how they would add more than 60 ships, and what types, have been vague.

But in an exclusive interview, a top Romney defense adviser provided some details on the ambitious plans for the Navy.

John Lehman, President Ronald Reagan’s 600-ship-era Navy secretary and one of the architects of Romney’s plans for the military, sat down with Defense News on Oct. 4.

Among the new details he revealed: Plans to create an 11th carrier air wing, one for each aircraft carrier. F/A-18 Super Hornet strike fighter production would continue beyond 2014. The amphibious fleet would be built up to the Marine Corps’ requirement of 39 ships. An entirely new, battle-group-deployable frigate would be procured, along with a ballistic missile defense ship.

The campaign has pledged to build more submarines and destroyers, and production of the littoral combat ship (LCS) would continue. Exact numbers of ships and aircraft continue to be reviewed, and Lehman made it clear the program continues to be evaluated and fleshed out.

Hardly Reagan’s “600 ship Navy”, this is still a boon (If he’s elected of course) for both the Navy and the States tied into the production of the fleet………….As was demonstrated here, shipbuilding contracts are chalked full of political “largess”, and politicians of both sides of the spectrum are remiss in missing said point…………..All of Maine, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Virginia, Mississippi and California would benefit directly, on top of various other States that produce subsystems and components………….Perhaps a chance to collaborate with Lockheed/Northrop, the producers of both a version of the USN Littoral Combat Ship and the USCG’s new deepwater National Security Cutters, when we start the surface combatant component of our National Shipbuilding Strategy……….

[Argus]

I couldn’t find the topic in which I posted the planned early retirement of a dozen or so USN cruisers and amphibious landing ships without replacement by the Obama administration, nor do I remember the thread in which we discussed the economic impact of downsizing the fleet and slowing replacements (Namely in Newport News Virginia) so I decided to post here:

Has it occured to you the U.S. is going broke? Isn't there a law right about now that mandates huge cuts to defense spending in a couple of months?

[Guest Derek L]

Has it occured to you the U.S. is going broke? Isn't there a law right about now that mandates huge cuts to defense spending in a couple of months?

Sequestration is what you’re thinking………The branded about “cuts”, if it happens, will be minimal in the great scheme of things (Literally a few less aircraft and tanks/APC procured annually), well the Romney plan will see older, expensively maintained and manpower intensive equipment replaced with more efficient platforms, on top of developing economies of scale on bigger ticket items (Subs and Amphib ships) by increasing the rate of production…..

It will be cheaper, and more flexible in the long run for the United States Navy to deploy a smallish Frigate with a crew of under 200, powered by a combined diesel/Gas Turbine power plant to combat pirates or conduct inspections of shipping then sending a AEGIS cruiser or destroyer with a crew approaching 400 and four monster gas turbines………

Or his proposal to replace a portion of the Ticonderoga cruisers in the Ballistic Missile Defence role with “Arsenal ships” based off the current LPD-17 platform as opposed to the current studies favouring nuclear powered Battlecruisers approaching the size of a small aircraft carrier……….

To say nothing of the planned effort, such as the same challenge we face, to eliminate top heavy bureaucratic bloat…………

[Guest Derek L]

I noticed Obama, in “defence” of his planned cuts to the military, and in this case the Navy (And a lot of voters in Virginia) mentioned Aircraft Carriers and submarines……….When President Obama entered office, the United States Navy had twelve aircraft carriers………several months after being in office, the USS Kitty Hawk was decommissioned without replacement, and in December of this year, the USS Enterprise will be retired leaving the USN at the lowest levels of Naval Aviation in the fleet since 1943.……….As to submarines since he entered office only three attack subs have been commissioned, all the while three have also been retired, with the vast majority still in commission having entered service in the early to mid 1980s………With a rate of production with less than 2 replacements a year for a fleet with an expected useful life of 33 years, said replacements won’t keep up with retirements.

Oh, and the Army and Marines still use bayonets…………. I doubt the men and women in uniform will find the humour in their Commander in Chief’s glib remarks referencing the material state of their armed forces……..