• 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!

Marines looking at deploying aboard foreign ships

US Conservative

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2013
Messages
33,522
Reaction score
10,826
Location
Between Athens and Jerusalem
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Faced with a shortage of U.S. Navy ships, the Marine Corps is exploring a plan to deploy its forces aboard foreign vessels to ensure they can respond quickly to global crises around Europe and western Africa. The initiative is a stopgap way to deploy Marines aboard ships overseas until more American vessels are available, said Brig. Gen. Norman Cooling, deputy commander, U.S. Marine Corps Forces Europe and Africa.

The Marines will be able to respond quickly to evacuate embassies or protect U.S. property and citizens, a need highlighted by the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador. "There's no substitute for U.S. amphibious" vessels, Cooling said. "We're looking at other options" in the meantime, he added.

635702458296772764-AFP-541750596.jpg


Marines looking at deploying aboard foreign ships

The world is on fire and the Chump in Chief has shrunk the military budget to the point that our own Marines have to hitch rides with the Euros. Terror flourishes, Moscow and Beijing are emboldened-and we are stuck this way for at least the next 13 years thanks to President weaksauce. :doh
 
Faced with a shortage of U.S. Navy ships, the Marine Corps is exploring a plan to deploy its forces aboard foreign vessels to ensure they can respond quickly to global crises around Europe and western Africa. The initiative is a stopgap way to deploy Marines aboard ships overseas until more American vessels are available, said Brig. Gen. Norman Cooling, deputy commander, U.S. Marine Corps Forces Europe and Africa.

The Marines will be able to respond quickly to evacuate embassies or protect U.S. property and citizens, a need highlighted by the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador. "There's no substitute for U.S. amphibious" vessels, Cooling said. "We're looking at other options" in the meantime, he added.

635702458296772764-AFP-541750596.jpg


Marines looking at deploying aboard foreign ships

The world is on fire and the Chump in Chief has shrunk the military budget to the point that our own Marines have to hitch rides with the Euros. Terror flourishes, Moscow and Beijing are emboldened-and we are stuck this way for at least the next 13 years thanks to President weaksauce. :doh


I don't really see what the problem is? The US, UK, France etc have been sharing technology, secrets, Bases, air strips etc for years now. In fact a lot of US soldiers that landed on the beaches in Normandy were transported by British landing craft, boats etc.
Makes sense to me that we use each other's resources especially in a time of a major global crisis.
 
The world is on fire, and so many of them have been started by our drones and missiles. By provoking Russia, we seem to like those fires burning.
 
Faced with a shortage of U.S. Navy ships, the Marine Corps is exploring a plan to deploy its forces aboard foreign vessels to ensure they can respond quickly to global crises around Europe and western Africa. The initiative is a stopgap way to deploy Marines aboard ships overseas until more American vessels are available, said Brig. Gen. Norman Cooling, deputy commander, U.S. Marine Corps Forces Europe and Africa.

The Marines will be able to respond quickly to evacuate embassies or protect U.S. property and citizens, a need highlighted by the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador. "There's no substitute for U.S. amphibious" vessels, Cooling said. "We're looking at other options" in the meantime, he added.

635702458296772764-AFP-541750596.jpg


Marines looking at deploying aboard foreign ships

The world is on fire and the Chump in Chief has shrunk the military budget to the point that our own Marines have to hitch rides with the Euros. Terror flourishes, Moscow and Beijing are emboldened-and we are stuck this way for at least the next 13 years thanks to President weaksauce. :doh

Another reason I got out of the service.
 
I don't really see what the problem is? The US, UK, France etc have been sharing technology, secrets, Bases, air strips etc for years now. In fact a lot of US soldiers that landed on the beaches in Normandy were transported by British landing craft, boats etc.
Makes sense to me that we use each other's resources especially in a time of a major global crisis.

Lol, our military budget is still 3x those of China and 7x those of Russia. It's also 40% above anything before 2001. It makes you wonder how we survived back then. En tout cast, the belief that they're emboldened is nothing but ignorant nonsense. Stop trying to be rational.
 
I don't really see what the problem is? The US, UK, France etc have been sharing technology, secrets, Bases, air strips etc for years now. In fact a lot of US soldiers that landed on the beaches in Normandy were transported by British landing craft, boats etc.
Makes sense to me that we use each other's resources especially in a time of a major global crisis.

I dont disagree with what you are saying, but we shouldn't have gotten into this situation in the first place. And this isn't a time of total war, we "technically" aren't even fighting a war at the moment. Its shortsighted to even be in this predicament.
 
Lol, our military budget is still 3x those of China and 7x those of Russia. It's also 40% above anything before 2001. It makes you wonder how we survived back then. En tout cast, the belief that they're emboldened is nothing but ignorant nonsense. Stop trying to be rational.

Purchasing parity. You can't just compare budgets, you have to look at what you get for the money. And in any case, allowing our military to shrink to the point that our marines (who are still needed hence the deployment) have to hitch a ride with euros. Its shameful, but then again so is this president.
 
Purchasing parity.

Military equipment around the world is purchased and sold in their US dollar value; not yens or rubles. Don't just throw out terms thinking you know how to use them in the real world, doc. However, let's say for a second you have some sort of point. Do you think the Russians are getting more for their money now that their currency is worth a 3rd of what it use to be? Think carefully about this one.

You can't just compare budgets,

Fine, let's compare actual military power:

How much stronger is the US military compared with the next strongest power?

Daniel Kearns said:
No other military or combination of militaries could even begin to inflict the slightest numbers of casualties on the United States military in a conventional war.

Consider: The U.S. spends close to what the entire rest of the world spends in defense. $711 billion. Per year. The next closest is China at $143 billion.

The M1 Abrams tank has seen more combat than just about any other tank on the battlefield today. It has never been knocked out by enemy fire. (Completely killed). Ever.

China has less than 500 Type 99 tanks, that have just been developed, and are not even close to being as good as the Abrams. We have 8,700 Abrams.

We have 10 aircraft carriers. The good kind. Everyone else has 10. Combined.
And they are mostly small ships that can launch helicopters.

There are 8,400 attack helicopters in the world. The U.S. has 6,400 of them.

The United States has engaged in every type of ground warfare in the last 20 years. From mountains to jungles, and from desert to urban, we have the some of the most experienced warriors in the world. No other country comes close to the amount of combat veterans that we have.

We own all the satellites that guide GPS systems. We have all the advanced stealth technology. The latest sensors? U.S. The latest information systems? U.S. An Abrams tank can see a target, the tank commander can instantly send that target to every tank in his company.

Seriously. Just stop.

you have to look at what you get for the money.

You get what you pay for. China gets sub-par equipment, we get the world's leading technology. Do you honestly think they pose a threat? Get serious, man who saves lives.

And in any case, allowing our military to shrink to the point that our marines (who are still needed hence the deployment) have to hitch a ride with euros. Its shameful, but then again so is this president.

Military recruitment can outgrow actual military spending. It happens all around the world. Hitching a ride with the Europeans isn't the issue you're making it out to be. Get serious.
 
Lol, our military budget is still 3x those of China and 7x those of Russia. It's also 40% above anything before 2001. It makes you wonder how we survived back then. En tout cast, the belief that they're emboldened is nothing but ignorant nonsense. Stop trying to be rational.

One needs to be cautious about using only total expenditures for a number of reasons. First, purchasing power differs. For example, according to official statistics (which may understate military expenditures by Russia and China for obvious regions e.g., to mask support for strategic programs), China's and Russia's military expenditures are just under 50% of U.S. expenditures. However, on a PPP-basis, their spending is about 80% of U.S. spending. Second, allocation of spending also matters. The U.S. spends a higher share of its military budget on salaries and benefits than do either Russia or China. Third, inefficient practices e.g., the military bidding-contracting-delivery process can also reduce the benefits of spending. The Pentagon has had a chronic history of cost-overruns and delays in numerous big-ticket programs (e.g., the F-35). Data concerning such issues in Russia and China aren't public--almost certainly some inefficiencies exist but the extent is unknown. This inefficiency should be a focus of reform, as programs that ultimately produce weapons systems at twice or three times the cost originally set forth in accepted bids are wasteful and they undercut the power impact from military investments.
 
Jeez...what's next?

Deploy some Marines on the Moon in case ISIS gets a foothold there?
 
One needs to be cautious about using only total expenditures for a number of reasons. First, purchasing power differs. For example, according to official statistics (which may understate military expenditures by Russia and China for obvious regions e.g., to mask support for strategic programs), China's and Russia's military expenditures are just under 50% of U.S. expenditures. However, on a PPP-basis, their spending is about 80% of U.S. spending. Second, allocation of spending also matters. The U.S. spends a higher share of its military budget on salaries and benefits than do either Russia or China. Third, inefficient practices e.g., the military bidding-contracting-delivery process can also reduce the benefits of spending. The Pentagon has had a chronic history of cost-overruns and delays in numerous big-ticket programs (e.g., the F-35). Data concerning such issues in Russia and China aren't public--almost certainly some inefficiencies exist but the extent is unknown. This inefficiency should be a focus of reform, as programs that ultimately produce weapons systems at twice or three times the cost originally set forth in accepted bids are wasteful and they undercut the power impact from military investments.

That's why I posted actual military capabilities. Anybody who thinks that Russia and China pose a threat to the US in any military capacity is simply out of their mind. Good grief, if we wanted to, we could literally nuke every major Chinese/Russian city overnight, cripple their entirely military infrastructure, and there wouldn't be a damn thing they'd be able to do short of kneeling down and asking for a quick death. It sounds really cocky, but the fact that Russia is telling the West not to fear Russia and China won't do much other than cry at the UN is proof enough.
 
The world is on fire and the Chump in Chief has shrunk the military budget to the point that our own Marines have to hitch rides with the Euros. Terror flourishes, Moscow and Beijing are emboldened-and we are stuck this way for at least the next 13 years thanks to President weaksauce. :doh

Actually, the Navy has been growing since President Obama took the helm.

During the George W. Bush administration the Navy fell to it's smallest size since the 19th century.

Since Obama took office he's slowly been building it back up.

But you have to understand that the Navy can't just snap its fingers and miracle ships up out of nowhere.

America's shipbuilding capacity isn't what it once was and building eight or ten amphibious ships, the quantity necessary to meet the demand from the combat commands, is going to take time, especially considering that the Marines aren't the only people in the DOD with a need for ships and has to share the limited capability to lay down hulls with the deep water Navy.

We also have to look at this from President Bush's perspective, though, and understand that he and the Congresses he was dealing with were fighting active ground wars for most of his presidency and the need to fund those wars was eating up the defense budget (and then some) hand over fist while he was, at the same time, trying to cut taxes (or at least not implement new taxes).

As much as he might have liked to plan for the future of force projection he had his plate full with the here and now.

There are a great many things that president Obama has messed up, but this situation with Marine transport ships is not something that can be laid at his feet.
 
Military equipment around the world is purchased and sold in their US dollar value; not yens or rubles. Don't just throw out terms thinking you know how to use them in the real world, doc. However, let's say for a second you have some sort of point. Do you think the Russians are getting more for their money now that their currency is worth a 3rd of what it use to be? Think carefully about this one.



Fine, let's compare actual military power:

How much stronger is the US military compared with the next strongest power?



Seriously. Just stop.



You get what you pay for. China gets sub-par equipment, we get the world's leading technology. Do you honestly think they pose a threat? Get serious, man who saves lives.



Military recruitment can outgrow actual military spending. It happens all around the world. Hitching a ride with the Europeans isn't the issue you're making it out to be. Get serious.

Our military advantage is a strategic one we should not give up lightly, shrinking the budget as we have while China and Russia are expanding theirs, and with the world as unstable as it is-is incredibly myopic.

Much of our budget goes to reseach and development that is being stolen and then altered by both China and Russia-thats nothing new.

The value of Russias dollar is more relevent to when it spends outside of Russia-it still makes most of its equipment and its got plenty of buyers.

And you mention carriers-we have so few operating now, that we are going to pull the carrier group that is operating in Iraq (you know-for the war Obama ended) is going to be pulled later this year, which only benefits ISIS.

This chump in chief is shrinking the military at a very bad time, so bad that our military can't even get where it needs to be.
 
That's why I posted actual military capabilities. Anybody who thinks that Russia and China pose a threat to the US in any military capacity is simply out of their mind. Good grief, if we wanted to, we could literally nuke every major Chinese/Russian city overnight, cripple their entirely military infrastructure, and there wouldn't be a damn thing they'd be able to do short of kneeling down and asking for a quick death. It sounds really cocky, but the fact that Russia is telling the West not to fear Russia and China won't do much other than cry at the UN is proof enough.

Im actually more concerned about them in proxy wars, not in direct conflict. They could nuke us too, and at least some missles would get through-so we have a defacto MAD deterrence in play.

But thats besides the point-if our military can't be effectively deployed on its own now, ANY conflict (not even total war) would be more than the military can bear. And Obama did this for his political benefit-to spend the money on his social and wealth redistribution schemes.

Truly a weak weak president.
 
Our military advantage is a strategic one we should not give up lightly, shrinking the budget as we have while China and Russia are expanding theirs, and with the world as unstable as it is-is incredibly myopic.

This is pretty silly. Budgets shrink when it is needed. Ours, even at levels slightly bellow those of 2010, still surpasses that of any other nation. The same with our military equipment. Hell, we could decommission half of our military equipment and we'd still have more than enough to overcome those of their militaries. What's your next non-point?

Much of our budget goes to reseach and development that is being stolen and then altered by both China and Russia-thats nothing new.

The value of Russias dollar is more relevent to when it spends outside of Russia-it still makes most of its equipment and its got plenty of buyers.

And you mention carriers-we have so few operating now, that we are going to pull the carrier group that is operating in Iraq (you know-for the war Obama ended) is going to be pulled later this year, which only benefits ISIS.

This chump in chief is shrinking the military at a very bad time, so bad that our military can't even get where it needs to be.

All of that diatribe because you're still in denial. I specifically pointed to our actual military capabilities which vastly surpass those of any other supposed threat around the world. I specifically posted the words of people who have served in the armed forces unlike you or I. I specifically highlighted the resources at our disposal. Yet here you are, still going"Nuh-uh! Them's emboldened!"
 
More of US Conservative's horse**** propaganda. Nothing to see here.
 
This is pretty silly. Budgets shrink when it is needed. Ours, even at levels slightly bellow those of 2010, still surpasses that of any other nation. The same with our military equipment. Hell, we could decommission half of our military equipment and we'd still have more than enough to overcome those of their militaries. What's your next non-point?



All of that diatribe because you're still in denial. I specifically pointed to our actual military capabilities which vastly surpass those of any other supposed threat around the world. I specifically posted the words of people who have served in the armed forces unlike you or I. I specifically highlighted the resources at our disposal. Yet here you are, still going"Nuh-uh! Them's emboldened!"

"And it's all Obama fault!"

It must be so fulfilling to do nothing during one's breaks from "saving lives" other than regurgitate this dishonest crap onto the forum all day.
 
Im actually more concerned about them in proxy wars, not in direct conflict.They could nuke us too, and at least some missles would get through-so we have a defacto MAD deterrence in play.

But thats besides the point-if our military can't be effectively deployed on its own now, ANY conflict (not even total war) would be more than the military can bear. And Obama did this for his political benefit-to spend the money on his social and wealth redistribution schemes.

Truly a weak weak president.

Our military can be effectively deployed. Ship building capabilities haven't caught up to the actual number of people in the military. This was already explained to you by a poster who has served. Do you have any other non-points?
 
That's why I posted actual military capabilities. Anybody who thinks that Russia and China pose a threat to the US in any military capacity is simply out of their mind. Good grief, if we wanted to, we could literally nuke every major Chinese/Russian city overnight, cripple their entirely military infrastructure, and there wouldn't be a damn thing they'd be able to do short of kneeling down and asking for a quick death. It sounds really cocky, but the fact that Russia is telling the West not to fear Russia and China won't do much other than cry at the UN is proof enough.

Right how, the U.S. remains the world's foremost power. However, it is important to be able to wage and win more limited conflicts than existential ones. Otherwise, its interests and allies will be in a weakened position, as it is unlikely that the U.S. would threaten the destruction of another country or countries, much less carry it out, if only its own vital or critical interests were not at stake.

That the number of U.S. combat troops has been decreasing and that the U.S. was not able to secure conclusive outcomes in either Afghanistan or Iraq (regardless of what one things of the decisions to go to war) suggests that the U.S. has areas where it needs to improve.
 
Actually, the Navy has been growing since President Obama took the helm.

During the George W. Bush administration the Navy fell to it's smallest size since the 19th century.

Since Obama took office he's slowly been building it back up.

But you have to understand that the Navy can't just snap its fingers and miracle ships up out of nowhere.

America's shipbuilding capacity isn't what it once was and building eight or ten amphibious ships, the quantity necessary to meet the demand from the combat commands, is going to take time, especially considering that the Marines aren't the only people in the DOD with a need for ships and has to share the limited capability to lay down hulls with the deep water Navy.

We also have to look at this from President Bush's perspective, though, and understand that he and the Congresses he was dealing with were fighting active ground wars for most of his presidency and the need to fund those wars was eating up the defense budget (and then some) hand over fist while he was, at the same time, trying to cut taxes (or at least not implement new taxes).

As much as he might have liked to plan for the future of force projection he had his plate full with the here and now.

There are a great many things that president Obama has messed up, but this situation with Marine transport ships is not something that can be laid at his feet.

The pentagons budget is the lowest its been since W. 2015 budget released: How the cuts affect pay, BAH, per diem and Tricare | Military Times | militarytimes.com

b2418_chart1_2.ashx


If the navy is growing, its because it has needed the funding the most (and it also supplies the marines). We have the smallest number of operable carrier fleets which are the backbone of our navy.

I understand it takes years to build ships (ive been following the Zumwalt closely for example) but we still have a net decline in our capabilities-and thats where my problem lies.
 
This is pretty silly. Budgets shrink when it is needed. Ours, even at levels slightly bellow those of 2010, still surpasses that of any other nation. The same with our military equipment. Hell, we could decommission half of our military equipment and we'd still have more than enough to overcome those of their militaries. What's your next non-point?



All of that diatribe because you're still in denial. I specifically pointed to our actual military capabilities which vastly surpass those of any other supposed threat around the world. I specifically posted the words of people who have served in the armed forces unlike you or I. I specifically highlighted the resources at our disposal. Yet here you are, still going"Nuh-uh! Them's emboldened!"

Our capabilities are diminishing under Obama, and in a world thats becoming more dangerous. Just another part of Obama's legacy.
 
"And it's all Obama fault!"

It must be so fulfilling to do nothing during one's breaks from "saving lives" other than regurgitate this dishonest crap onto the forum all day.

It is pretty sad that members of the military who have served are saying one thing, that it can be explained in a detailed post and people will still scream "BUT OBAMA!" - There really is nothing like a bit of critical thinking.
 
Our military can be effectively deployed. Ship building capabilities haven't caught up to the actual number of people in the military. This was already explained to you by a poster who has served. Do you have any other non-points?

Our military can be deployed if it hitches a ride with other nations. And as already mentioned, we are going to leave naked a terror hotspot-but then again, Obama doesn't really plan to fight ISIS beyond symbolically anyway.
 
It is pretty sad that members of the military who have served are saying one thing, that it can be explained in a detailed post and people will still scream "BUT OBAMA!" - There really is nothing like a bit of critical thinking.

Propagandists aren't paid to think critically. Just regurgitate lie after lie after lie.
 
Back
Top Bottom