You know things are wacky when G. W. Bush is a voice of reason.

[Revoltingest]

I understand it is complicated and isn't cut and dry. But I would give my left shoe to hear a Trump voter on this forum say "You know what, he is acting against a platform that I voted on" instead of doubling down because they would then have to accept the fact a politician got em. But I have yet to see it.

I say what I want to say.
Others say what they want to say.
I didn't vote for him expecting him to deliver on everything he said.
I even wanted & expected Congress & reality to rein him in.
So I've no worries about him backtracking.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Trump is a symptom of a culture, largely shaped by sensationalism- and ratings-driven media. Politics and media at odds is nothing more than the snake eating its own tail now, and the populace is left with nothing to trust at either end.

 

[esmith]

In actuality I agree with Senator McCain that the military budget should be increased over what the President put forward.
My reasons are best summed up here
The U.S. Military Is In Really Bad Shape

As a retired member of the US military I know what can happen if you are so hamstrung by lack of funds that training, preventive maintenance, replacement of worn-out equipment, spare parts, etc is a serious problem that combat readiness is degraded severally.

 

[Quetzal]

In actuality I agree with Senator McCain that the military budget should be increased over what the President put forward.
My reasons are best summed up here
The U.S. Military Is In Really Bad Shape

As a retired member of the US military I know what can happen if you are so hamstrung by lack of funds that training, preventive maintenance, replacement of worn-out equipment, spare parts, etc is a serious problem that combat readiness is degraded severally.

Perhaps if we ceased with these military operations outside of our immediate defense, we could focus that funding on these things. Further, I am more inclined to believe that the budget for the military is fine but it has been misused and wasted.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Perhaps I don't consider such a war of words a loss of freedom.
What rights have the media lost under Trump?

Some including the BBC have been excluded from his press meetings.
That is certainly a start.

 

[esmith]

Perhaps if we ceased with these military operations outside of our immediate defense, we could focus that funding on these things. Further, I am more inclined to believe that the budget for the military is fine but it has been misused and wasted.

One can not make a determination between defense or offense when it comes down to military hardware and personnel.
Yes, I agree that there is waste in the Pentagon. I think General Keane has the right idea to look at the Pentagon monetary side as a "business". As a matter of fact just recently he said the money to fund the increased budget of the military could be found within the Pentagon ; can't remember which program he was on when he said this but it was only yesterday and he reiterated what he has said previously
Gen. Jack Keane: Defense Dept. Needs a CEO

 

[Quetzal]

One can not make a determination between defense or offense when it comes down to military hardware and personnel.

As someone who knows little to nothing about it, what are some things that I, as a voter, can look for the future when candidates campaign for stuff like that? I know it's tough to tell sometimes but any help is better than none at all.

Yes, I agree that there is waste in the Pentagon. I think General Keane has the right idea to look at the Pentagon monetary side as a "business". As a matter of fact just recently he said the money to fund the increased budget of the military could be found within the Pentagon ; can't remember which program he was on when he said this but it was only yesterday and he reiterated what he has said previously

That would be great, right? Sounds like he wants to re-invest the current budget in a way that is more helpful across the board while cutting the fat. I can get behind that.

 

[esmith]

As someone who knows little to nothing about it, what are some things that I, as a voter, can look for the future when candidates campaign for stuff like that? I know it's tough to tell sometimes but any help is better than none at all.

Well technically I don't know of any weapon system that is strictly geared toward defense or offense.
The @Revoltingest stated this which is accurate and inaccurate.

I'll give some examples.....
Offensive:
Littoral combat ships designed to insert troops for small missions into countries are great for nation
building & policing the world, but won't protect us from first strikes by the China or Russia.
Defensive:
Directed energy weapons defend against ballistic missiles, but aren't useful attacking countries like Iraq, Iran
or Afghanistan, where we'd use troops, drones, bombs & missiles to kill bad guys while avoiding innocents.

Let's look at his example of Offensive.
True that they can not directly defend against ballistic missiles, just as a SSNB or FBN submarines can not directly defend us against first strikes. Both of them can be seen as either a offensive (first strike) or defensive(MAD). When it comes to amphibious assault ships and their supporting forces can be seen as offensive to land and support capturing of territory or defensive in the role of ensuring that our allies can not be overrun or as a "big stick". Remember the best defense is an good offense.
Now to his defensive examples.
Directed energy weapons can be seen as an offensive or defensive weapon. No they can not attack but they still can be an offensive weapon. Depends on the role they are used in. As an offensive weapon they could insure we could attack a nation and have no fear of retaliation from ballistic missiles. Defensive to insure that we will not be attacked first.
So basically any military weapon can be categorized as defensive or offensive, it just depends the role it is used for.

Whoever changed the War Department to the Department of Defense did the public a great disservice. The military is a war machine, just because Dept of Defense sounds more benign that the Dept of War does not change the role of the military.

 

[metis]

If we hadn't wasted trillions on two absolutely idiotic wars, we could have used these funds to make us stronger and up to date. Ignorance has its consequences, and they usually ain't very good ones.

 

[BSM1]

Well technically I don't know of any weapon system that is strictly geared toward defense or offense.
The @Revoltingest stated this which is accurate and inaccurate.

Let's look at his example of Offensive.
True that they can not directly defend against ballistic missiles, just as a SSNB or FBN submarines can not directly defend us against first strikes. Both of them can be seen as either a offensive (first strike) or defensive(MAD). When it comes to amphibious assault ships and their supporting forces can be seen as offensive to land and support capturing of territory or defensive in the role of ensuring that our allies can not be overrun or as a "big stick". Remember the best defense is an good offense.
Now to his defensive examples.
Directed energy weapons can be seen as an offensive or defensive weapon. No they can not attack but they still can be an offensive weapon. Depends on the role they are used in. As an offensive weapon they could insure we could attack a nation and have no fear of retaliation from ballistic missiles. Defensive to insure that we will not be attacked first.
So basically any military weapon can be categorized as defensive or offensive, it just depends the role it is used for.

Whoever changed the War Department to the Department of Defense did the public a great disservice. The military is a war machine, just because Dept of Defense sounds more benign that the Dept of War does not change the role of the military.

The best designed 'defensive' weapon should have the ability to become (or have the ability to support) an 'offensive' weapon to completely neutralize the initial threat.

 

[metis]

The best designed 'defensive' weapon should have the ability to become (or have the ability to support) an 'offensive' weapon to completely neutralize the initial threat.

That's MAD!

 

[Quetzal]

The best designed 'defensive' weapon should have the ability to become (or have the ability to support) an 'offensive' weapon to completely neutralize the initial threat.

I just wish that there was more transparency with designed intent. Of course, we can't know these things because if we know, ISIS knows, etc.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

His favoring (note cromulent spelling) some outlets is nothing new or abnormal.
He just does it differently.....just openly & with venom.
Animosity hasn't reined in anyone....& has even inspired increased criticism.
That's liberty.
Moreover, info provided is still available to others for reporting & commentary.
Trump has no new laws or administrative decrees which infringe upon free speech.
Bill Clinton was worse in his attempts to curb speech...but his party had no objections.
As I recall, only Libertarians raised a red flag.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess. I think the words of a President inform the actions of others, so see venomous attacks as impactful.
I understand and respect why you don't, and agree the only thing new about this is the method of presentation.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That's MAD!

I see what you did there...

 

[esmith]

If we hadn't wasted trillions on two absolutely idiotic wars, we could have used these funds to make us stronger and up to date. Ignorance has its consequences, and they usually ain't very good ones.

As the old saying goes:
If a frog had wings they bump their arse when they jumped

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Actually, no one like me has done that to you.
I've never voted for any pol elected to Congress or the presidency until Trump.
(The Libertarians....the ones who'd lower your taxes...always lose.)
And if you make no distinction between defense & offense (foreign adventurism), then you're a poopy head.

Did you vote for any presidents, congressmen or senators who won?
What is their record on the spending priorities you decry?

I was not thinking along the lines of how one votes. An outcome of an election and the variables impacting voter behavior is much greater then who you mark on the ballot.

I am talking about a continued public support for military expansion while turning a blind eye to the disproportionate military budget when a politician mentions something about "defense".

 

[BSM1]

As the old saying goes:
If a frog had wings they bump their arse when they jumped

I think you left out 'wouldn't' as in, they wouldn't bump...etc.

 

[Revoltingest]

Some including the BBC have been excluded from his press meetings.
That is certainly a start.

If Trump is really trying to be a tyrant, he's doing a miserable job.
It requires more than just personal petulance & shunning.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well technically I don't know of any weapon system that is strictly geared toward defense or offense.
The @Revoltingest stated this which is accurate and inaccurate.

Let's look at his example of Offensive.
True that they can not directly defend against ballistic missiles, just as a SSNB or FBN submarines can not directly defend us against first strikes. Both of them can be seen as either a offensive (first strike) or defensive(MAD). When it comes to amphibious assault ships and their supporting forces can be seen as offensive to land and support capturing of territory or defensive in the role of ensuring that our allies can not be overrun or as a "big stick". Remember the best defense is an good offense.
Now to his defensive examples.
Directed energy weapons can be seen as an offensive or defensive weapon. No they can not attack but they still can be an offensive weapon. Depends on the role they are used in. As an offensive weapon they could insure we could attack a nation and have no fear of retaliation from ballistic missiles. Defensive to insure that we will not be attacked first.
So basically any military weapon can be categorized as defensive or offensive, it just depends the role it is used for.

Whoever changed the War Department to the Department of Defense did the public a great disservice. The military is a war machine, just because Dept of Defense sounds more benign that the Dept of War does not change the role of the military.

Of course any weapon can be used for offense or defense.
But each has it's orientation.
Example....
Submarines with nuclear missiles are defensive under the MAD strategy,
but could be used offensively. So we must look at the context. In
Americastan, it worked for defense, but not for the kind of wars we started.

 

[Revoltingest]

We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess. I think the words of a President inform the actions of others, so see venomous attacks as impactful.
I understand and respect why you don't, and agree the only thing new about this is the method of presentation.

Well that's the lamest vicious rebuttal of the week.
At least call me a bad name.