• 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!

musings about aircraft carriers and military spending

Direct protection of US territory, correct. Carriers are not really a defensive weapon. They do however protect US interests abroad, and those of our allies, largely by being a loaded weapon kept close.

Why doesn't Russia and China have interests abroad?
 
You do realize you are moving the goalpost...don't you? You do realize you have yet to counter a single thing I said, nor explained by we do not actually need the number of carriers we have...don't you?

You have not explained why we need ten times more than anyone else?
 
Why doesn't Russia and China have interests abroad?

Proving once again that there are stupid questions.

1: They do have interests abroad. They can mostly reach the places by land.

2: They also have a very different strategic interest.

3: They are also less likely to face multiple hotspots where they would want to rapidly place forces.

4: Why would we want to be like Russia or China?
 
Oh my ****ing god. We have fewer than 100k total military personnel is Europe. How long do you think they could slow down, well, any one?

For a long time considering 100 000 is more than all but perhaps 20 countries and they are vastly better equipped than all but perhaps 10 countries.

Combined with the forces of NATO and Russia is outnumbered 7 to 1 (guess right now will check later)
 
Proving once again that there are stupid questions.

1: They do have interests abroad. They can mostly reach the places by land.

2: They also have a very different strategic interest.

3: They are also less likely to face multiple hotspots where they would want to rapidly place forces.

4: Why would we want to be like Russia or China?

I see claims with no evidence
 
I see claims with no evidence

Says the guy who has provided no evidence that any of his hilariously uninformed posts is based on anything other than hysteria.
 
Says the guy who has provided no evidence that any of his hilariously uninformed posts is based on anything other than hysteria.

Hysteria? That is funny. the only people with interests that carriers protect are corporations
 
Kids do not file for welfare in most cases. If their parents are such losers, then they really shouldn't have kids to begin with...

But since they do should we let them starve?
 
People should just shut up unless they really understand the purpose of a Aircraft carrier and the need for forward projection.

Why don't we ask Europe why they cannot patrol the Mediterranean instead of the USA per agreement after 1949. It's their sea, not ours.

All ships go through a rotation of at sea, making ready for sea, and upkeep.

I guess some people on here would love to see 2 year deployments and sailors not having a family life.
 
You don’t care about the children of our service members whose jobs you want to cut. You don’t care about the kids of the shipbuilders who you want to put out of work...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
People should just shut up unless they really understand the purpose of a Aircraft carrier and the need for forward projection.

Why don't we ask Europe why they cannot patrol the Mediterranean instead of the USA per agreement after 1949. It's their sea, not ours.

All ships go through a rotation of at sea, making ready for sea, and upkeep.

I guess some people on here would love to see 2 year deployments and sailors not having a family life.

No we would like to see fewer deployments
 
You don’t care about the children of our service members whose jobs you want to cut. You don’t care about the kids of the shipbuilders who you want to put out of work...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So it's a jobs program
 
No we would like to see fewer deployments

You would like.....you mean.

You do not speak for people that actually know what the **** they are talking about.

Your only consistency on this forum is trying to "one liner" other people into arguments without offering the slightest debate of ideas. You are a one trick pony, and people are sick of your act.
 
You would like.....you mean.

You do not speak for people that actually know what the **** they are talking about.

Your only consistency on this forum is trying to "one liner" other people into arguments without offering the slightest debate of ideas. You are a one trick pony, and people are sick of your act.

I think not son. I know exactly what I am talking about. Bring something to the debate. Otherwise you are dismissed
 
So it's a jobs program

I answered that already. It is called defending this country. Now, I know that liberals really do not care about defense of this nation. They really hate this country. Bed wetting liberals are always on the side of lawbreakers, criminals, and ILLEGALS. That's a given. They support welfare over soldiers. The funniest thing? They can't figure out why they keep losing elections.
 
I answered that already. It is called defending this country. Now, I know that liberals really do not care about defense of this nation. They really hate this country. Bed wetting liberals are always on the side of lawbreakers, criminals, and ILLEGALS. That's a given. They support welfare over soldiers. The funniest thing? They can't figure out why they keep losing elections.

I'm a liberal and I served ten years. How about you?
 
And why is that? You are buying the hype

The US has dozens of oversees allies and international interests. Russia has a grand total of one (1) major oversees ally, which is Syria. Hence, we have more carriers than Russia.
 
The US has dozens of oversees allies and international interests. Russia has a grand total of one (1) major oversees ally, which is Syria. Hence, we have more carriers than Russia.

Hmmmm. Maybe those interests should get their own navy. I am sick of protecting corporate profits
 
Hmmmm. Maybe those interests should get their own navy. I am sick of protecting corporate profits

Protecting international shipping, supply humanitarian efforts, and defending our allies are not for the purpose of corporate profits.
 
Protecting international shipping, supply humanitarian efforts, and defending our allies are not for the purpose of corporate profits.

It is ONLY about corporate profits. How can you not see this?
 
Back
Top Bottom