Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

👇

 

 

For people that are hell bent on insisting trump is the most peaceful president in history, and hate wasteful spending, you sure are happy about the ballooning numbers in military recruitment.  Hypocrite much?

Posted
Just now, daz28 said:

For people that are hell bent on insisting trump is the most peaceful president in history, and hate wasteful spending, you sure are happy about the ballooning numbers in military recruitment.  Hypocrite much?

 

No, not at all.  Unless we're starting new wars with them.  Which as far as I know we're not planning on doing.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
Just now, Doc said:

 

No, not at all.  Unless we're starting new wars with them.  Which as far as I know we're not planning on doing.

So why do you want to pay and equip so many soldiers?  It makes no sense, other than the 'you can never be too cautious' approach.  That approach isn't the approach you use, when you're currently defending cutting support for hurting Americans.  

Posted
7 minutes ago, daz28 said:

For people that are hell bent on insisting trump is the most peaceful president in history, and hate wasteful spending, you sure are happy about the ballooning numbers in military recruitment.  Hypocrite much?

peace through strength

 

it's been this way for my entire life

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

peace through strength

 

it's been this way for my entire life

So you can never have enough?  Why not make the DOD budget $2 trillion then?  We're discussing the utility of the matter, not a general platitude.  

Posted
11 minutes ago, daz28 said:

For people that are hell bent on insisting trump is the most peaceful president in history, and hate wasteful spending, you sure are happy about the ballooning numbers in military recruitment.  Hypocrite much?

 

This makes absolutely no sense.

The recruitment numbers, and trend changes are very good news.

Undeniable.

  • Agree 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
Just now, sherpa said:

 

This makes absolutely no sense.

The recruitment numbers, and trend changes are very good news.

Undeniable.

But also contrary to the notion that we're under the control of the most peaceful president ever, and that we can't afford anything. 

I just looked it up.  The average soldier cost $140,000 a piece.  

  • Eyeroll 1
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, daz28 said:

But also contrary to the notion that we're under the control of the most peaceful president ever, and that we can't afford anything. 

I just looked it up.  The average soldier cost $140,000 a piece.  

 

It doesn't matter how anybody rates the "relative peacefulness" of a president.

What matters is what Congress has deemed the military mission to be, and what it takes to be able to provide that.

 

Right now, the mission is to be able to wage full warfare on two fronts. One in the Middle East or Europe, and the other in the Pacific.

That takes a certain amount of manpower and capability which we currently don't have.

 

We are short about 1000 Air Force pilots.

We have fewer and far older airplanes than in decades.

We could not possibly handle the operational tasking we covered during Desert Storm.

Not possible.

 

We are short two carriers, a bunch of Naval Aviators, and we can't man the carriers we do have.

Every carrier that has gone to CentCom, or the Med/Red Sea has been extended beyond reasonable time.

That has a massive impact on retention.

We are wearing out our airplanes, which have a defined service life, at an astounding rate. Far accelerated from the initial plan.

 

Our ship building capacity is sorely lacking, but getting better.

 

That's the way it is.

Want to change that?

Change the mission requirement.

 

Either way, the bump in recruitment is the best news in years.

Edited by sherpa
  • Agree 2
  • Thank you (+1) 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

It doesn't matter how anybody rates the "relative peacefulness" of a president.

What matters is what Congress has deemed the military mission to be, and what it takes to be able to provide that.

 

Right now, the mission is to be able to wage full warfare on two fronts. One in the Middle East or Europe, and the other in the Pacific.

That takes a certain amount of manpower and capability which we currently don't have.

 

We are short about 1000 Air Force pilots.

We have fewer and far older airplanes than in decades.

We could not possibly handle the operational tasking we covered during Desert Storm.

Not possible.

 

We are short two carriers, a bunch of Naval Aviators, and we can't man the carriers we do have.

Every carrier that has gone to CentCom, or the Med/Red Sea has been extended beyond reasonable time.

That has a massive impact on retention.

We are wearing out our airplanes, which have a defined service life, at an astounding rate. Far accelerated from the initial plan.

 

Our ship building capacity is sorely lacking, but getting better.

 

That's the way it is.

Want to change that?

Change the mission requirement.

 

Either way, the bump in recruitment is the best news in years.

Do you want me to list the all reasons why a ton of things that are important are being cut?  All I have to do is say that "it's the mission", and "Congress says so" to justify it?  Is that the exact same kind of thinking that has us in what some think has put us in an existential crisis; that the smart ones know will absolutely be our demise.  Like I said, if it's that important, go ahead and throw another trillion logs on the military industrial complex fire.   

Oh look, Karoline is a bleeping liar.  Who knew??  Now blame the whistleblower or the news.  Lather, rinse repeat:

 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is under mounting scrutiny after reports revealed he pulled highly sensitive information about U.S. airstrikes in Yemen from a secure military communications channel and shared it via Signal, an unsecured messaging app, with his wife, brother, lawyer, and others.

Posted
2 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Do you want me to list the all reasons why a ton of things that are important are being cut?  All I have to do is say that "it's the mission", and "Congress says so" to justify it?  Is that the exact same kind of thinking that has us in what some think has put us in an existential crisis; that the smart ones know will absolutely be our demise.  Like I said, if it's that important, go ahead and throw another trillion logs on the military industrial complex fire.   

I'll take a strong military over trans parades in Venezuela. They are now spending my money the right way!

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Do you want me to list the all reasons why a ton of things that are important are being cut?  All I have to do is say that "it's the mission", and "Congress says so" to justify it?  Is that the exact same kind of thinking that has us in what some think has put us in an existential crisis; that the smart ones know will absolutely be our demise.  Like I said, if it's that important, go ahead and throw another trillion logs on the military industrial complex fire.   

 

Say whatever you want.

I'm just stating how it is.

 

Iran is way more dangerous than it was.

Russia has started a war.

China is very aggressive.

 

  • Agree 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Say whatever you want.

I'm just stating how it is.

 

Iran is way more dangerous than it was.

Russia has started a war.

China is very aggressive.

 

This is why we hired the greatest negotiating peacemaker in the history of our great country!!!  He did a spot on job with NK.  

Posted
1 hour ago, daz28 said:

So you can never have enough?  Why not make the DOD budget $2 trillion then?  We're discussing the utility of the matter, not a general platitude.  

It isn't about enough; it's about having the most advanced and most current systems.

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

many people (nearly all R's) cared about hillary's emails.  That went on for many months.  so should this.

Whataboutisms aside, Hillary’s reckless and willful disregard for email security actually makes the point I was referring to.  Important to the far right, less so to the middle, and as we moved to the left you liberals couldn’t defend her strongly enough.  All told, while a significantly greater scandal than we see here, it ended with a whimper.  
 


 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
9 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

LOL.

See the in my original post..

 

That was a private bet to myself that the first response would be about Kevin Sorbo rather than the point about anonymous sources.

 

You halfheartedly went there in your second sentence Steve, but you just could not help yourself.

 

 

 

 


Fine. 😂 But we’re doubting the likelihood that this twit actually shared the info after we know he did it once? 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
On 4/20/2025 at 4:21 PM, Doc said:

I'm sure the fact that the mission was carried out flawlessly has you befuddled...

Time to take off the Underoos and put on the big boy absorbent pants, Superman. 
 

You're casting your stone with the imbeciles.  
 

And unless the Doc in your name refers to a cartoon dwarf, you likely know this as well.  

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
13 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

Say whatever you want.

I'm just stating how it is.

 

Iran is way more dangerous than it was.

Russia has started a war.

China is very aggressive.

 

... and we're being led by self-serving imbeciles with an impeccable history of usury and failure, claiming righteousness to lure in the 'suckers'.

 

i am not a sucker, you?
 

 

There is no ***** way Pete ***** Hegseth does not belong in jail right ***** now.  

Posted (edited)

How the ***** can an ex Navy pilot be going, 'Oh yeah, man, it's totally cool the guy was texting his mistress battle plans to show off'

 

What the ***** is wrong with some of you???

 

Wake the ***** up

 

oh yeah, But Iran.........   well guess what the ***** the dimwit's gonna do with that one

 

Edited by BringMetheHeadofLeonLett
×
×
  • Create New...