• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pentagon Official: The Facts Are In, And Obama’s Policy Is A Direct Danger.....

MMC

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
yes.gif
A bipartisan Panel.....finds BO has got it wrong and has been wrong all along. Especially when it comes to Foreign Policy, National Security and Defense.

This should be a nice smack upside BO's head.....lets see how he will try and shrug this off. Knowing now.....even some of his own knows he hasn't been Right in any of these areas. Lets hope this will burst that empty bubble he carries on his shoulders. What say ye?



.....to the United States.


The report is in, and the review of the president’s foreign policy is clear: If there is not an immediate course-reversal, the United States is in serious danger. In 2013, the United States Institute for Peace, “a congressionally-created, independent, nonpartisan institution whose mission is to prevent, mitigate, and resolve violent conflicts around the world,” was asked to assist the National Defense Panel with reviewing the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The National Defense Panel is a congressional-mandated bipartisan commission that’s co-chairs were appointed by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.

On July 31, the National Defense Panel released its long-awaited report on the effects of the QDR and delivered its findings to Congress. The panel pulled no punches — its findings were a scathing indictment of Obama’s foreign policy, national security policy, and defense policy. The panel found that president Barack Obama’s QDR, military force reductions, and trillion-dollar defense budget cuts are dangerous — and will leave the country in a position where it is unable to respond to threats to our nation’s security. This, the panel concluded, must be reversed as soon as possible.....snip~

Pentagon Official: The Facts Are In, And Obama
 
They cut the defense budget and then turn around and give a huge sum of money to Iran (bribe money) who funds terrorism. They refuse to secure our borders then want billions to take care of all the people making their way into this country illegally. It's insanity. A poll released by AP this month shows an increase of those who disapprove of Obama's foreign policy. He is down 6 points since January with a 55% disapproval rating. I'm sure there's a lot of folks who are starting to feel like sitting ducks when they see terrorism spreading throughout, the increased threats on the U.S. and an administration that can't even secure our borders allowing a massive influx of who knows who to make it through. We have two more years of this administration. Here's hoping we all survive it.

http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AP-GfK-July-2014-Poll-Topline-FINAL_FP.pdf
 
MMC said:
yes.gif
A bipartisan Panel.....finds BO has got it wrong and has been wrong all along. Especially when it comes to Foreign Policy, National Security and Defense.

This should be a nice smack upside BO's head.....lets see how he will try and shrug this off. Knowing now.....even some of his own knows he hasn't been Right in any of these areas. Lets hope this will burst that empty bubble he carries on his shoulders. What say ye?

.....to the United States.

The report is in, and the review of the president’s foreign policy is clear: If there is not an immediate course-reversal, the United States is in serious danger. In 2013, the United States Institute for Peace, “a congressionally-created, independent, nonpartisan institution whose mission is to prevent, mitigate, and resolve violent conflicts around the world,” was asked to assist the National Defense Panel with reviewing the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The National Defense Panel is a congressional-mandated bipartisan commission that’s co-chairs were appointed by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.

On July 31, the National Defense Panel released its long-awaited report on the effects of the QDR and delivered its findings to Congress. The panel pulled no punches — its findings were a scathing indictment of Obama’s foreign policy, national security policy, and defense policy. The panel found that president Barack Obama’s QDR, military force reductions, and trillion-dollar defense budget cuts are dangerous — and will leave the country in a position where it is unable to respond to threats to our nation’s security. This, the panel concluded, must be reversed as soon as possible.....snip~

Pentagon Official: The Facts Are In, And Obama
Click to expand...

No need to worry as long as Obama is stumbling over his red lines. If someone calls his bluff he will just fold and fiz.
 
vesper said:
They cut the defense budget and then turn around and give a huge sum of money to Iran (bribe money) who funds terrorism. They refuse to secure our borders then want billions to take care of all the people making their way into this country illegally. It's insanity. A poll released by AP this month shows an increase of those who disapprove of Obama's foreign policy. He is down 6 points since January with a 55% disapproval rating. I'm sure there's a lot of folks who are starting to feel like sitting ducks when they see terrorism spreading throughout, the increased threats on the U.S. and an administration that can't even secure our borders allowing a massive influx of who knows who to make it through. We have two more years of this administration. Here's hoping we all survive it.

http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AP-GfK-July-2014-Poll-Topline-FINAL_FP.pdf
Click to expand...


Mornin V.
hat.gif
I like the part where they are telling BO.....he will have to be the one to take it to the Democrats now. Since they have the report. Let him be the one to force pressure on them.

Which now he knows. Some in his Team are saying he hasn't been Right all along.
 
joG said:
No need to worry as long as Obama is stumbling over his red lines. If someone calls his bluff he will just fold and fiz.
Click to expand...


Mornin' Jog. :2wave: Do you think this will force the Demos to go back to the Kennedy Doctrine?
 
MMC said:
Mornin' Jog. :2wave: Do you think this will force the Demos to go back to the Kennedy Doctrine?
Click to expand...

Containment? No. It will not work this time around. We are sliding into a multi polar structure. We are in much the same position of the countries that now comprise Germany before Bismarck internalized security at a supra national level. The only way to win this one is by getting a global security architecture in place that can make national military rivalry senseless like.
 
joG said:
Containment? No. It will not work this time around. We are sliding into a multi polar structure. We are in much the same position of the countries that now comprise Germany before Bismarck internalized security at a supra national level. The only way to win this one is by getting a global security architecture in place that can make national military rivalry senseless like.
Click to expand...

The Kennedy Doctrine wasn't containment.....I was looking at the Flexible Response Doctrine.


In 1961, the Kennedy administration sought to remake U.S. defense doctrine after concluding that former President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s “New Look” doctrine, which focused on mutually-assured destruction, was inappropriate for the Cold War. Kennedy decided that the United States would adopt a “Flexible Response Doctrine,” in which we would hold adversaries at bay through strategic deterrence and the ability to fight two wars — plus a smaller conflict — at the same time. That doctrine carried the United States through the Cold War and all of the other so-called shooting wars that followed, despite numerous challenges from nation states and non-state actors alike.....snip~
 
MMC said:
The Kennedy Doctrine wasn't containment.....I was looking at the Flexible Response Doctrine.


In 1961, the Kennedy administration sought to remake U.S. defense doctrine after concluding that former President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s “New Look” doctrine, which focused on mutually-assured destruction, was inappropriate for the Cold War. Kennedy decided that the United States would adopt a “Flexible Response Doctrine,” in which we would hold adversaries at bay through strategic deterrence and the ability to fight two wars — plus a smaller conflict — at the same time. That doctrine carried the United States through the Cold War and all of the other so-called shooting wars that followed, despite numerous challenges from nation states and non-state actors alike.....snip~
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. That will be necessary, but we are able to fight 2 wars right now if they aren't against Russia or China type nations. The thing is, that the whole effort must be to internalize security at the supranational level instead of everyone and their momentary but varying coalitions in continuous struggles and little and big wars trying to keep the pots from boiling over on a day to day basis.

So the question is for the interim in which we will need to be flexible, indeed.
 
MMC said:
yes.gif
A bipartisan Panel.....finds BO has got it wrong and has been wrong all along. Especially when it comes to Foreign Policy, National Security and Defense.

This should be a nice smack upside BO's head.....lets see how he will try and shrug this off. Knowing now.....even some of his own knows he hasn't been Right in any of these areas. Lets hope this will burst that empty bubble he carries on his shoulders. What say ye?



.....to the United States.


The report is in, and the review of the president’s foreign policy is clear: If there is not an immediate course-reversal, the United States is in serious danger. In 2013, the United States Institute for Peace, “a congressionally-created, independent, nonpartisan institution whose mission is to prevent, mitigate, and resolve violent conflicts around the world,” was asked to assist the National Defense Panel with reviewing the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The National Defense Panel is a congressional-mandated bipartisan commission that’s co-chairs were appointed by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.

On July 31, the National Defense Panel released its long-awaited report on the effects of the QDR and delivered its findings to Congress. The panel pulled no punches — its findings were a scathing indictment of Obama’s foreign policy, national security policy, and defense policy. The panel found that president Barack Obama’s QDR, military force reductions, and trillion-dollar defense budget cuts are dangerous — and will leave the country in a position where it is unable to respond to threats to our nation’s security. This, the panel concluded, must be reversed as soon as possible.....snip~

Pentagon Official: The Facts Are In, And Obama
Click to expand...

You will always go wrong reading an editorial about what a paper says, and not reading the actual paper. Hint: you should have read the paper, not some guy telling you what to think about it.
 
wll i'm not going to read the paper, I do have problems with force reductions, especially the naval forces -which is the best way to project US power.

as to the 2 wars doctrine - I don't think that is really needed anymore -if push comes to shove, we'll just have to ramp up -
if we didn't have ongoing deficit spending i'd be for it, but we don't so i'm not.
 
MMC said:
yes.gif
A bipartisan Panel.....finds BO has got it wrong and has been wrong all along. Especially when it comes to Foreign Policy, National Security and Defense.

This should be a nice smack upside BO's head.....lets see how he will try and shrug this off. Knowing now.....even some of his own knows he hasn't been Right in any of these areas. Lets hope this will burst that empty bubble he carries on his shoulders. What say ye?



.....to the United States.


The report is in, and the review of the president’s foreign policy is clear: If there is not an immediate course-reversal, the United States is in serious danger. In 2013, the United States Institute for Peace, “a congressionally-created, independent, nonpartisan institution whose mission is to prevent, mitigate, and resolve violent conflicts around the world,” was asked to assist the National Defense Panel with reviewing the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The National Defense Panel is a congressional-mandated bipartisan commission that’s co-chairs were appointed by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.

On July 31, the National Defense Panel released its long-awaited report on the effects of the QDR and delivered its findings to Congress. The panel pulled no punches — its findings were a scathing indictment of Obama’s foreign policy, national security policy, and defense policy. The panel found that president Barack Obama’s QDR, military force reductions, and trillion-dollar defense budget cuts are dangerous — and will leave the country in a position where it is unable to respond to threats to our nation’s security. This, the panel concluded, must be reversed as soon as possible.....snip~

Pentagon Official: The Facts Are In, And Obama
Click to expand...
Well, my take has been this all along.

Give a progressive/liberal a peace prize, and they think they have the right to play God.
 
annata said:
wll i'm not going to read the paper, I do have problems with force reductions, especially the naval forces -which is the best way to project US power.

as to the 2 wars doctrine - I don't think that is really needed anymore -if push comes to shove, we'll just have to ramp up -
if we didn't have ongoing deficit spending i'd be for it, but we don't so i'm not.
Click to expand...


Heya AT. :2wave: That's alright.....Here it is and note, how they came to their conclusion.


In 2012, the Obama administration decided to change the two-and-a-half war policy of the Flexible Response doctrine, in part due to the nation’s war fatigue, after having been at war for over a decade, and also in response to budgetary constraints exacerbated by a sluggish economy. The administration announced its intentions to significantly reduce the defense budget and re-examine the acquisition of major defense systems and hardware, shaping the future size and scope of the U.S. military. Given that Obama was first elected on an antiwar platform, this decision seems reasonable.

Here’s the problem: At the time the Obama administration announced the change in our defense doctrine, the president was also in front of the cameras threatening to use military force in Iran and Syria, announcing a “strategic pivot” toward Asia to counter a rising China, and swearing to uphold our defense treaties with Israel, Taiwan, South Korea, NATO, etc, all while we were still at war in Afghanistan. How can you threaten to take military action that could start a war when you are already fighting one in Afghanistan if you have changed your military doctrine to only fight one war at a time?.....snip~

Pentagon Official: Obama's Policy Is A Direct Danger To U.S. | The Daily Caller
 
Redress said:
You will always go wrong reading an editorial about what a paper says, and not reading the actual paper. Hint: you should have read the paper, not some guy telling you what to think about it.
Click to expand...

Well, as usual you do like to show why you have your usual problems with comprehension. Next time Note which News was carrying the Daily Callers Article. Which is why you couldn't figure out why Yahoo was carrying the Conclusion of the Report from those who was reporting on that conclusion. Also you should have figured out who Miller was.....and why it was reporting this finding to Congress?

Or did you want to attempt to say they didn't make this report to Congress? Yeah.....I didn't think so.


Joseph Miller is the pen name for a ranking Department of Defense official with a background in U.S. special operations and combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has worked in strategic planning.

http://news.yahoo.com/pentagon-official-facts-obama-policy-direct-danger-united-024816529.html


Next time don't talk about.....what you don't know about.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Well, my take has been this all along.

Give a progressive/liberal a peace prize, and they think they have the right to play God.
Click to expand...


Heya LOP. :2wave: How ya been? Hope things have been well for you.

Well you know with the majority of them.....its not about results. Its about.....intent. The problem I see.....is they always let their emotions take control of their so called assessments.

Not to mention you know how they luv the pomp and ceremony.....relishing in any Kudos thrown their way.
 
In other words, this Pentagon guy wants more money for defense.

The Cold War is over, America has no significant enemies (though Neocons keep trying to manufacture them), the federal deficit is still a mess and this guy wants to bring back the archaic two and a half war strategy.
Sure, it made some sense during the Cold War...but not today. America simply cannot afford it and it is totally unnecessary anyway.

The British - when they were the dominant world power - passed the 1889 Naval Defense Act which introduced the 'two power standard' which stipulated that Britain had to have a navy powerful enough to defeat the next two largest navies in the world. It started a huge military build up which culminated in the First World War and indirectly (eventually) led to bankrupting Britain and ending the British Empire.
Britain could not afford such a lavish military on a long term basis...they simply did not have the economic might to out-build the next two biggest potential enemies but they built it anyway.

Naval Defence Act 1889 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

America's economy is a semi-mess...being propped up by massive debt and central bank stimulus. She is running one huge deficit after another and literally cannot afford (and does not need) such a huge military...let alone an even larger one.
America has to focus on getting it's economy strong again and it's fiscal house in order before it can even consider throwing more money at the military industrial complex.


IMO, America needs to balance the budget...that means cut back on social programs and slash the defense budget in 1/2. Also all overseas military bases should be closed and all troops brought home. It's time America stop budding into other countries affairs and get her economic house in order.

Ike warned about the military industrial complex and, unfortunately, his warning's have gone largely unheard.


Anyone wants to debate this then I suggest they contact Ron Paul as I pretty much agree with everything he says on U.S. foreign policy and he can answer your questions/objections far better then I can.
 
Last edited:
MMC said:
Mornin' Jog. :2wave: Do you think this will force the Demos to go back to the Kennedy Doctrine?
Click to expand...

:lamo I doubt it, most of the JFK liberals already came under the GOP tent during the 1970's.
 
MMC said:
yes.gif
A bipartisan Panel.....finds BO has got it wrong and has been wrong all along. Especially when it comes to Foreign Policy, National Security and Defense.

This should be a nice smack upside BO's head.....lets see how he will try and shrug this off. Knowing now.....even some of his own knows he hasn't been Right in any of these areas. Lets hope this will burst that empty bubble he carries on his shoulders. What say ye?



.....to the United States.


The report is in, and the review of the president’s foreign policy is clear: If there is not an immediate course-reversal, the United States is in serious danger. In 2013, the United States Institute for Peace, “a congressionally-created, independent, nonpartisan institution whose mission is to prevent, mitigate, and resolve violent conflicts around the world,” was asked to assist the National Defense Panel with reviewing the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The National Defense Panel is a congressional-mandated bipartisan commission that’s co-chairs were appointed by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.

On July 31, the National Defense Panel released its long-awaited report on the effects of the QDR and delivered its findings to Congress. The panel pulled no punches — its findings were a scathing indictment of Obama’s foreign policy, national security policy, and defense policy. The panel found that president Barack Obama’s QDR, military force reductions, and trillion-dollar defense budget cuts are dangerous — and will leave the country in a position where it is unable to respond to threats to our nation’s security. This, the panel concluded, must be reversed as soon as possible.....snip~

Pentagon Official: The Facts Are In, And Obama
Click to expand...

Good afternoon MMC

To be fair to Obama and the Administration, and correct me if I'm wrong, the budget cuts to the defense budget are largely made up of cuts that were insisted upon during the Sequester negotiations that resulted in about a $trillion in reductions, I think 3 years ago now. In order to get that deal, the Republicans had to agree to Democrat demands for reductions in defense spending. So congress and the President are equal partners in that budget reduction.

As it relates to foreign policy, however, no sane person could contend that the world is a safer, more stable place, after 5 plus years of the Obama Presidency and most of his initiatives have been at best neutral and often quite disastrous.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Good afternoon MMC

To be fair to Obama and the Administration, and correct me if I'm wrong, the budget cuts to the defense budget are largely made up of cuts that were insisted upon during the Sequester negotiations that resulted in about a $trillion in reductions, I think 3 years ago now. In order to get that deal, the Republicans had to agree to Democrat demands for reductions in defense spending. So congress and the President are equal partners in that budget reduction.

As it relates to foreign policy, however, no sane person could contend that the world is a safer, more stable place, after 5 plus years of the Obama Presidency and most of his initiatives have been at best neutral and often quite disastrous.
Click to expand...


Heya CJ :2wave: Uncle Sequester was a BO concept. Despite the agreements made how does this change what BO did in 2012 with the Flexible Doctrine? Note he did not do change that doctrine in his First term.


How can you threaten to take military action that could start a war when you are already fighting one in Afghanistan if you have changed your military doctrine to only fight one war at a time?.....snip~
 
MMC said:
Heya CJ :2wave: Uncle Sequester was a BO concept. Despite the agreements made how does this change what BO did in 2012 with the Flexible Doctrine? Note he did not do change that doctrine in his First term.


How can you threaten to take military action that could start a war when you are already fighting one in Afghanistan if you have changed your military doctrine to only fight one war at a time?.....snip~
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with you, overall - I simply wanted to point out that the reductions in defense spending were not solely an act of the administration.
 
DA60 said:
In other words, this Pentagon guy wants more money for defense.

The Cold War is over, America has no significant enemies (though Neocons keep trying to manufacture them), the federal deficit is still a mess and this guy wants to bring back the archaic two and a half war strategy.
Sure, it made some sense during the Cold War...but not today. America simply cannot afford it and it is totally unnecessary anyway.

The British - when they were the dominant world power - passed the 1889 Naval Defense Act which introduced the 'two power standard' which stipulated that Britain had to have a navy powerful enough to defeat the next two largest navies in the world. It started a huge military build up which culminated in the First World War and indirectly (eventually) led to bankrupting Britain and ending the British Empire.
Britain could not afford such a lavish military on a long term basis...they simply did not have the economic might to out-build the next two biggest potential enemies but they built it anyway.

Naval Defence Act 1889 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

America's economy is a semi-mess...being propped up by massive debt and central bank stimulus. She is running one huge deficit after another and literally cannot afford (and does not need) such a huge military...let alone an even larger one.
America has to focus on getting it's economy strong again and it's fiscal house in order before it can even consider throwing more money at the military industrial complex.


IMO, America needs to balance the budget...that means cut back on social programs and slash the defense budget in 1/2. Also all overseas military bases should be closed and all troops brought home. It's time America stop budding into other countries affairs and get her economic house in order.

Ike warned about the military industrial complex and, unfortunately, his warning's have gone largely unheard.


Anyone wants to debate this then I suggest they contact Ron Paul as I pretty much agree with everything he says on U.S. foreign policy and he can answer your questions/objections far better then I can.
Click to expand...


Heya DA. :2wave: Hagel appointed the Chairs in 2014. One is Dr Perry, former SOD under Bilbo Clinton. The other is retired Army Gen. John Abizaid.

Report Addresses U.S. National Security, Sequestration, Force Structure

The consensus conclusion of the report is that there is a growing gap between the strategic objectives the U.S. military is expected to achieve and the resources required to do so. In their cover letter to Congress, NDP co-chairs Dr. William Perry and General John P. Abizaid wrote, “We must act now to address our challenges if the nation is to continue benefiting from its national security posture.”

“USIP is an honest, non-partisan convener of sometimes difficult conversations related to America’s security,” said Kristin Lord, acting president of USIP. “The NDP is the most recent in a long list of practical discussions involving senior leaders hosted, and led, by the Institute.” USIP has also facilitated the work of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, the Task Force on the United Nations, the Iraq Study Group, the Afghanistan Senior Working Group, the Genocide Prevention Task Force, and others.....snip~

National Defense Panel Releases Assessment of 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review | PressReleasePoint
 
MMC said:
Heya DA. :2wave: Hagel appointed the Chairs in 2014. One is Dr Perry, former SOD under Bilbo Clinton. The other is retired Army Gen. John Abizaid.

Report Addresses U.S. National Security, Sequestration, Force Structure

The consensus conclusion of the report is that there is a growing gap between the strategic objectives the U.S. military is expected to achieve and the resources required to do so. In their cover letter to Congress, NDP co-chairs Dr. William Perry and General John P. Abizaid wrote, “We must act now to address our challenges if the nation is to continue benefiting from its national security posture.”

“USIP is an honest, non-partisan convener of sometimes difficult conversations related to America’s security,” said Kristin Lord, acting president of USIP. “The NDP is the most recent in a long list of practical discussions involving senior leaders hosted, and led, by the Institute.” USIP has also facilitated the work of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, the Task Force on the United Nations, the Iraq Study Group, the Afghanistan Senior Working Group, the Genocide Prevention Task Force, and others.....snip~

National Defense Panel Releases Assessment of 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review | PressReleasePoint
Click to expand...

Heya MMC :2wave:

Well...each to their own.

I don't doubt that the military is being stretched thin based on what is expected of them.

I simply want to lower the expectations.

IMO, America needs to get it's economy strong and stable again or eventually there simply will not be the resources available to EVER ramp up military spending enough when it truly is necessary.

That should be the top priority, IMO.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
Heya MMC :2wave:

Well...each to their own.

I don't doubt that the military is being stretched thin based on what is expected of them.

I simply want to lower the expectations.

IMO, America needs to get it's economy strong and stable again or eventually there simply will not be the resources available to EVER ramp up military spending enough when it truly is necessary.

That should be the top priority, IMO.
Click to expand...


According to the Panel.....if we don't do this. We will be less prosperous. Also we can't account for those who start conflicts or war with us. Plus our enemy that is not a Nation. Hasn't been defeated and has spread to force us to fight on multiple fronts. We just are not in a position to continue on this way.

We wont even be able to respond to those we have across the globe.



The panel’s report said the past several years of budget cuts and mandated reduction in personnel and weapons have stirred deep unease among allies who would count on the U.S. in a crisis.

“Not only have they caused significant investment shortfalls in U.S. military readiness and both present and future capabilities, they have prompted our current and potential allies and adversaries to question our commitment and resolve,” the report said. “Unless reversed, these shortfalls will lead to a high-risk force in the near future. That in turn will lead to an America that is not only less secure but also far less prosperous. In this sense, these cuts are ultimately self-defeating.”.....snip~

Obama military strategy too weak for future security, panel reports - Washington Times

I don't disagree with getting the economy strong again. I think we can find not sharing military tech.....would help. Also Coburn's book on Government Waste could find some more money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom