2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Black Swan

walshyn93 wrote: »

I always find it funny how people especially in Ireland criticise America for having such a large military.

Former US President Dwight D Eisenhower, 5-star general, and the one who warned the American people about the power and influence of the Military Industrial Complex was Irish?

YFlyer

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Massively expensive weapons programs that are years behind schedule and which are not close to delivering an operational product, not to mention serious questions about their actually usefulness.

Weapons manufacturers telling porkies.

walshyn93

Black Swan wrote: »

Former US President Dwight D Eisenhower, 5-star general, and the one who warned the American people about the power and influence of the Military Industrial Complex was Irish?

Stupid comment.

AbusesToilets

YFlyer wrote: »

Weapons manufacturers telling porkies.

Somewhat, although the Military and Government carry their share of the blame, for not making more reasonable (in design terms) demands of the manufacturer. Of course the line separating the both is so blurred it may as well not exist.

AbusesToilets

Black Swan wrote: »

I've read this story going all the way back to Ronald Reagan's justification for the Cold War arms race against the CCCP (Союз Советских Социалистических Республик). Although the face of the du jour enemy may change, it occurs every presidential race.

Given that the military "budget numbers may be massive," and there is no "may be" when the budget is compared with the nations of the world, including those that may challenge the US today (or tomorrow), what is the solution? I hear a lot of podium polemics coming out of the mouths of Democrat and Republican 2016 candidates, but they are only words without any substance based upon verifiable experience.

The Pentagon needs better oversight on budgetary issues certainly. The Government could also do a better job defining what role it wants to play globally and front up to what that actually entails in terms of military power.

There needs to be a cleaving of the political body from the industrial, because when you have politicians forcing the military to buy crap it doesn't want or need in order to support their industrial backers, yet will blanch at seeing through much needed programs that are vital to the US's military strength, you have issues.

The US just sold Saudi Arabia a version of the LCS ship that far outstrips the version that the USN will procuring. The R&D for which has been paid for by the Saudis, yet they will continue to buy the anemic, most likely useless version going forward. Just one example from many.

Black Swan

New Hampshire primaries voting has concluded and now they are counting. Have not been able to find a live site that gives the counts for Democrat and Republican presidential candidates. The polls suggest a Sanders and Trump win.

walshyn93

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The Pentagon needs better oversight on budgetary issues certainly. The Government could also do a better job defining what role it wants to play globally and front up to what that actually entails in terms of military power.

There needs to be a cleaving of the political body from the industrial, because when you have politicians forcing the military to buy crap it doesn't want or need in order to support their industrial backers, yet will blanch at seeing through much needed programs that are vital to the US's military strength, you have issues.

The US just sold Saudi Arabia a version of the LCS ship that far outstrips the version that the USN will procuring. The R&D for which has been paid for by the Saudis, yet they will continue to buy the anemic, most likely useless version going forward. Just one example from many.

Maybe this is what Trump means when he talks about building up the military. He really means build up the military rather than supporting his donors interests because he doesnt have any. There's no doubt that the US could have a better military for cheaper.

BoJack Horseman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The Pentagon needs better oversight on budgetary issues certainly. The Government could also do a better job defining what role it wants to play globally and front up to what that actually entails in terms of military power.

This is actually a very important question... in fact, it's the whole ball game.
Politically, the US has not taken the time to seriously ask itself what it wants its role is in the world to be & how it uses it's military to enforce this doctrine.
At the moment there is a 'cart before horse' where the US is reacting rather than leading.
And because this foreign policy is so anemic & well, barely exists, what is expected of it's military is utterly confused.... so it's stretched.


I've read what I could on the matter & IMO it's only Bernie Sanders who offers even a semblance of a vision of what he wants from foreign policy & therefore the military.

The US just sold Saudi Arabia a version of the LCS ship that far outstrips the version that the USN will procuring. The R&D for which has been paid for by the Saudis, yet they will continue to buy the anemic, most likely useless version going forward. Just one example from many.

Actually, the Saudi LCS deal will require significant R&D before it goes to manufacture. (which is why it's so bafflingly expensive)
Tolerances on these poorly conceived jet boats are so poor is so meager that a lot of revision will have to happen in order to be able to accommodate what the KSA want it to.

walshyn93

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

This is actually a very important question... in fact, it's the whole ball game.
Politically, the US has not taken the time to seriously ask itself what it wants its role is in the world to be & how it uses it's military to enforce this doctrine.
At the moment there is a 'cart before horse' where the US is reacting rather than leading.
And because this foreign policy is so anemic & well, barely exists, what is expected of it's military is utterly confused.... so it's stretched.


I've read what I could on the matter & IMO it's only Bernie Sanders who offers even a semblance of a vision of what he wants from foreign policy & therefore the military.




Actually, the Saudi LCS deal will require significant R&D before it goes to manufacture.
Tolerances on these poorly conceived jet boats are so poor is so meager that a lot of revision will have to happen in order to be able to accomodate what the KSA want it to.

What's Bernie's foreign policy?

ancapailldorcha

YFlyer wrote: »

Weapons manufacturers telling porkies.

This is a forum for serious debate. Please try and provide more constructive posts than this.

BoJack Horseman

walshyn93 wrote: »

What's Bernie's foreign policy?

It seems (to my reading at least) to be one of disengagement.

detail is limited, but he seems to be in favour of multilateralism (sp) & making allies make a greater contribution to any engagements.

This would be better for the US military & better for the US taxpayer.


.... To give an example:
No candidate mentions this specifically (probably hard in a 30 second soundbite) & I assume that most American's are unaware..
The USN has 5 x BMD enabled destroyers deployed to Spain & Italy to remain constantly on station to provide Europe with missile defence against ballistic missile attack from Iran.

Bernie supports the Iran deal & there is no doubt that with it in place, the massive cost of deploying these vessels to the Med is no longer necessary & can be withdrawn.
It also seems strange that the US taxpayer is expected cough up to defend southern europe when those countries refuse to do so for themselves.
Rather than strengthening this, insisting on greater input from allies & pulling back from this barely existing threat makes huge sense.

ancapailldorcha

Walshyn93 is currently serving another forum ban so you might have to wait a while for a response.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ludo

Black Swan wrote: »

New Hampshire primaries voting has concluded and now they are counting. Have not been able to find a live site that gives the counts for Democrat and Republican presidential candidates. The polls suggest a Sanders and Trump win.

No it hasn't...the only voting in NH that has concluded are those three tiny villages who vote at midnight.

InTheTrees

Black Swan wrote: »

New Hampshire primaries voting has concluded and now they are counting. Have not been able to find a live site that gives the counts for Democrat and Republican presidential candidates. The polls suggest a Sanders and Trump win.

Hang on a second there its only five thirty in the morning in NH, I think the polls will stay open all day wont they?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Zascar

Black Swan wrote: »

New Hampshire primaries voting has concluded and now they are counting.

No it has not, it has only started.

AbusesToilets

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It seems (to my reading at least) to be one of disengagement.

detail is limited, but he seems to be in favour of multilateralism (sp) & making allies make a greater contribution to any engagements.

This would be better for the US military & better for the US taxpayer.


.... To give an example:
No candidate mentions this specifically (probably hard in a 30 second soundbite) & I assume that most American's are unaware..
The USN has 5 x BMD enabled destroyers deployed to Spain & Italy to remain constantly on station to provide Europe with missile defence against ballistic missile attack from Iran.

Bernie supports the Iran deal & there is no doubt that with it in place, the massive cost of deploying these vessels to the Med is no longer necessary & can be withdrawn.
It also seems strange that the US taxpayer is expected cough up to defend southern europe when those countries refuse to do so for themselves.
Rather than strengthening this, insisting on greater input from allies & pulling back from this barely existing threat makes huge sense.

That approach would benefit Europe as a whole tbh. The recent debacle with the Crimea and Ukraine has badly exposed the US's ability to react to Russian actions and the paucity of NATO defense expenditure. European countries need to get serious about their own defense, too many decades spent allowing the US to take the burden.

BoJack Horseman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That approach would benefit Europe as a whole tbh. The recent debacle with the Crimea and Ukraine has badly exposed the US's ability to react to Russian actions and the paucity of NATO defense expenditure. European countries need to get serious about their own defense, too many decades spent allowing the US to take the burden.

That's exactly my opinion...

US readers would benefit from a potential principle of disengagement from having to spend quite a chunk of change babysitting the wealthier Europe.

And it would be nicer to see Europe be strong.
Russia new very well when Obama offered 'a reset' button that they had carte blanche to do whatever they wanted, once they agreed to not sell weapons to Iran.

To me, it seems like a foreign policy unsure of what it really wants.

Overheal

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

That's exactly my opinion...

US readers would benefit from a potential principle of disengagement from having to spend quite a chunk of change babysitting the wealthier Europe.

And it would be nicer to see Europe be strong.
Russia new very well when Obama offered 'a reset' button that they had carte blanche to do whatever they wanted, once they agreed to not sell weapons to Iran.

To me, it seems like a foreign policy unsure of what it really wants.

To me it's not hard to figure out. But then, I'm doing some light research on the MIC.

Just about every person in government - including Sanders - has at one time or another supported for instance the F35 project. Because, it creates jobs. Constituents love jobs. Constitutents vote for jobs. You kill jobs, your opponent runs the negative attack ads, you lose your seat, etc. etc.

John McCain for example, pretty respectable guy who picked a bad VP, once said that the F35 program was "A scandal and a tragedy" direct quote. After lobbying from Lockheed Martin, and the inclusion of F35s being based in Arizona and such, McCain started singing a starkly different tune which is perhaps the greatest flip flop I've read in years:

"With the arrival today of what may be the greatest combat aircraft in the history of the world to its home in Yuma, I'm confident that this great city, and our beloved state of Arizona will now contribute another important chapter to the defense of the country we all cherish so dearly."

Wow.

See, the people in government who ultimately decide our foreign policy love to justify engagement because engagement justifies expense, and that expense creates jobs, and those jobs create votes. And unlike votes from peace-loving "hippies," votes from MIC workers and lobby arms come with dollars attached as perks. You can go to opensecrets to see for yourself. Unsurprisingly, employees in the military industrial sector will more likely vote and financially contribute for neocons that want to preserve their jobs.

It's all about money at the end of the day. Until the day in hell that political finance reform changes, this is the state of things.

BoJack Horseman

Overheal wrote: »

See, the people in government who ultimately decide our foreign policy love to justify engagement because engagement justifies expense.

Sanders seems to see differently.... whether he will get the chance to make good is unknown as yet.

Of course, so did Obama & it changed quickly enough once the briefing documents started piling up on his desk.

(And in fairness to the senator, while the F35 has been a nightmare, it actually may be the best plane when all is complete

Overheal

Now I might be calling into question Carsons judgement again, as he suggests he would accept a VP spot from Trump (and by doing so unofficially resigns from the race in my opinion)

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ben-carson-im-open-to-being-donald-trumps-vice-president/

AbusesToilets

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Sanders seems to see differently.... whether he will get the chance to make good is unknown as yet.

Of course, so did Obama & it changed quickly enough once the briefing documents started piling up on his desk.

(And in fairness to the senator, while the F35 has been a nightmare, it actually may be the best plane when all is complete

Come on now Bojack...

Manach

TBF the Chinese clone, thanks to their hacks, of the F35 are reported to be quite good.

BoJack Horseman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Come on now Bojack...

BoJack has faith!

time will tell...

AbusesToilets

Manach wrote: »

TBF the Chinese clone, thanks to their hacks, of the F35 are reported to be quite good.

Just needs an engine now...

Fr Tod Umptious

Overheal wrote: »

To me it's not hard to figure out. But then, I'm doing some light research on the MIC.

Just about every person in government - including Sanders - has at one time or another supported for instance the F35 project. Because, it creates jobs. Constituents love jobs. Constitutents vote for jobs. You kill jobs, your opponent runs the negative attack ads, you lose your seat, etc. etc.

John McCain for example, pretty respectable guy who picked a bad VP, once said that the F35 program was "A scandal and a tragedy" direct quote. After lobbying from Lockheed Martin, and the inclusion of F35s being based in Arizona and such, McCain started singing a starkly different tune which is perhaps the greatest flip flop I've read in years:

"With the arrival today of what may be the greatest combat aircraft in the history of the world to its home in Yuma, I'm confident that this great city, and our beloved state of Arizona will now contribute another important chapter to the defense of the country we all cherish so dearly."

Wow.

See, the people in government who ultimately decide our foreign policy love to justify engagement because engagement justifies expense, and that expense creates jobs, and those jobs create votes. And unlike votes from peace-loving "hippies," votes from MIC workers and lobby arms come with dollars attached as perks. You can go to opensecrets to see for yourself. Unsurprisingly, employees in the military industrial sector will more likely vote and financially contribute for neocons that want to preserve their jobs.

It's all about money at the end of the day. Until the day in hell that political finance reform changes, this is the state of things.

Happens all the time.

Everyone's favourite big business attacking senator Lizzy Warren attacked General Electric for tax dodging, but said Boston was "a great fit" when they decided to move their corporate HQ from Connecticut.

banquo

Black Swan wrote: »

New Hampshire primaries voting has concluded and now they are counting. Have not been able to find a live site that gives the counts for Democrat and Republican presidential candidates. The polls suggest a Sanders and Trump win.

Live county-by-county results from Politico.

http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/new-hampshire

MightyMandarin

Poor ol' Rubio had yet another robot moment earlier. This guy really can't speak without his writers putting the words in his mouth. Awful, awful politician.

BoJack Horseman

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Poor ol' Rubio had yet another robot moment earlier. This guy really can't speak without his writers putting the words in his mouth. Awful, awful politician.

He just needs to be taken offline and patched.