500 Admirals and Generals endorse Gov. Romney

[Svnla]

Pretty sick that we already spend 48% of the world's military spending while being surrounded by oceans while China, surrounded by Pakistan, Iran, NK, and Russia, only spends 8%. We haven't launched a necessary war since WW2... How many failures will it take for people to wake up. 1 trillion a year down the drain.

Hummmm, Iran is not a neighbor of China, not even close.

 

[EagleKeeper]

With republicans the military will only continue to grow and more wars will be started. Romney even talked about how we need more ships and we should go after Iran.

Unfortunately, the Dems are too spineless to gut the military like it should... however, at least it won't grow under them at the same rate nor will we be attacking random foreign countries.

Gutting the military encourages bullies to push forward.
Also, sitting around doig nothing while people are being killed because you do not want to be involved; might dirty your hands.

But that is OK with you

 

[EagleKeeper]

Pretty sick that we already spend 48% of the world's military spending while being surrounded by oceans while China, surrounded by Pakistan, Iran, NK, and Russia, only spends 8%. We haven't launched a necessary war since WW2... How many failures will it take for people to wake up. 1 trillion a year down the drain.

How many people died as a result of our military being gutted to the point that we were unable to respond in WWII.

 

[blankslate]

So he flip flopping I see.

Not true in on the flip-flopping accusation he is much better than either Senator Kerry or Governor Romney.

He supported the president in 2008 as well. AFAIK for some of the same reasons now as before.

Sometimes I wonder what might have been if he ran for the nomination for the 2000 election. It's been rumored that he was considering it but that his wife was worried for his safety. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong or it was just an unfounded rumor.

But, I think it would've been much different and better if the republican nominee in 2000 was General Powell.

 

[CrackRabbit]

How many people died as a result of our military being gutted to the point that we were unable to respond in WWII.

I'm going to call you out on that one EK.
Before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor there was little sentiment among the American people to go to war; having suffered through the futileness of World War I trench warfare a little less than 20 years earlier.
They were quite content to let Europe sort out its own "problems" and keep our military current enough for defense.

 

[shadow9d9]

Hummmm, Iran is not a neighbor of China, not even close.

Closer than it is to us, and yet we are the one that wants to attack it. I will remove it from the list in the future however since it does not border it.

 

[shadow9d9]

How many people died as a result of our military being gutted to the point that we were unable to respond in WWII.

How many nuclear bombs or intercontinental missiles did we have back then?

 

[Brainonska511]

How many nuclear bombs or intercontinental missiles did we have back then?

For the record, as the Korean War demonstrated, we need something between nuclear holocaust and nothing.

On the other hand, that doesn't mean we still can't trim some of the military down without compromising our foreign policy goals.

 

[shadow9d9]

For the record, as the Korean War demonstrated, we need something between nuclear holocaust and nothing.

On the other hand, that doesn't mean we still can't trim some of the military down without compromising our foreign policy goals.

Umm, the Korean War shows a few things, none of which is that. It shows that we need to stay out of foreign affairs(we haven't learned). It shows that land wars are ridiculously costly against any semi competent non steamrolled enemy. Costly in monetary terms as well as lives. A few nuclear blasts would have destroyed NK if we really had wanted to win. My point stands.

You think a larger military would have "won" that? At what cost? Would we occupy it like Iraq and Afghanistan? When has that ever worked outside of Germany, when we had all of Europe helping in the process and we got lucky that the USSR fell.

 

[sigurros81]

How many people died as a result of our military being gutted to the point that we were unable to respond in WWII.

I always find amusement in seeing people who know nothing about history making fools of themselves with comments like this.

 

[NoStateofMind]

James B. Busey was until recently on the board of directors for the Curtiss-Wright Corporation, "the largest aircraft manufacturer in the United States at the end of World War II, but has evolved to largely become a component manufacturer, specializing in actuators, aircraft controls, valves, and metal treatment."

James T. Conway is on the board of directors for Textron, "an American industrial conglomerate that includes Bell Helicopter, Cessna Aircraft Company, and Greenlee, among others. With total revenues of $11.3 billion, and approximately 32,000 employees in 29 countries, Textron is currently ranked 236th in the 2012 issue of the Fortune 500, a list that ranks the largest companies in the United States."

Those were the two first names on Romney's list. Now certainly board membership does not equal nefarious intent, but the current employment status of all of these men and women might warrant a look to understand the bias at play.

That may be but you could do the same with Obama supporters if you had a list. Point? Neither are innocent.

 

[Regasak]

With republicans the military will only continue to grow and more wars will be started. Romney even talked about how we need more ships and we should go after Iran.

Unfortunately, the Dems are too spineless to gut the military like it should... however, at least it won't grow under them at the same rate nor will we be attacking random foreign countries.

Strong military/intel is a deterrent. Dems already have gutted the military. If we gut it much more national security will be non existent. Obama has also obligated us already for another decade in Afghanistan. I think you should look for a better source of information. You seem to be completely ignorant of foreign affairs and military matters.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I'm going to call you out on that one EK.
Before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor there was little sentiment among the American people to go to war; having suffered through the futileness of World War I trench warfare a little less than 20 years earlier.
They were quite content to let Europe sort out its own "problems" and keep our military current enough for defense.

How many more people died as a result of our gutted military after Dec 7.

Had we had a strong military, would Japan have decided to try for all the Pacific?

 

[EagleKeeper]

How many nuclear bombs or intercontinental missiles did we have back then?

What has been launched since then?

More people have died as a result of other conventional wars because no one steps in and says enough is enough.

No one can justify the use of a nuke.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I always find amusement in seeing people who know nothing about history making fools of themselves with comments like this.

Yet the question has not been answered.

You think the Japanese stopped in Asia on Dec 8th.

 

[CrackRabbit]

How many more people died as a result of our gutted military after Dec 7.

Had we had a strong military, would Japan have decided to try for all the Pacific?

Yes, very likely.
They knew the US Navy was the only thing that could keep them from dominating the entire Pacific (even in its "gutted" state in 1941, which BTW we still had one of the most modern navies in the world at the time), as the British and Australians were busy fighting Hitler and Mussolini in Europe and North Africa and didn't have the resources to spare for a two front war.
Hence the whole surprise attack to destroy as much of our Pacific fleet as possible in one blow.

Seriously, your posts lately have made me lose a great deal of respect that I had for you.

 

[Brainonska511]

Umm, the Korean War shows a few things, none of which is that. It shows that we need to stay out of foreign affairs(we haven't learned). It shows that land wars are ridiculously costly against any semi competent non steamrolled enemy. Costly in monetary terms as well as lives. A few nuclear blasts would have destroyed NK if we really had wanted to win. My point stands.

You think a larger military would have "won" that? At what cost? Would we occupy it like Iraq and Afghanistan? When has that ever worked outside of Germany, when we had all of Europe helping in the process and we got lucky that the USSR fell.

Not larger. More competent. After WWII, there was a rapid trimming of the military and loss of trained men. At the start of the Korean War, the US experienced major setbacks because we had very green soldiers up against a battle-hardened force.

A few nukes may have won it, but at what cost?

 

[yllus]

That may be but you could do the same with Obama supporters if you had a list. Point? Neither are innocent.

Oh, I bet that's true. But here we're talking about 500 admirals and generals who endorse Governor Romney, and it behooves a voter to get an idea of any and all possible motives those 500 might have for their statements.

 

[Nebor]

What has been launched since then?

More people have died as a result of other conventional wars because no one steps in and says enough is enough.

No one can justify the use of a nuke.

If you knew in 2001 that more than 2,100 US service members would lose their lives, and tens of thousands of others would lose their limbs fighting a protracted, unwinnable war in Afghanistan, would that not justify the use of nuclear weapons, at the cost of a couple million backwards savages, in order to efficiently send the message that the United States is not to be fucked with?

 

[mchammer187]

Strong military/intel is a deterrent. Dems already have gutted the military. If we gut it much more national security will be non existent. Obama has also obligated us already for another decade in Afghanistan. I think you should look for a better source of information. You seem to be completely ignorant of foreign affairs and military matters.

If we didn't already spend more money on Defense than the next 12 countries combined you might have a point.

 

[CitizenKain]

If you knew in 2001 that more than 2,100 US service members would lose their lives, and tens of thousands of others would lose their limbs fighting a protracted, unwinnable war in Afghanistan, would that not justify the use of nuclear weapons, at the cost of a couple million backwards savages, in order to efficiently send the message that the United States is not to be fucked with?

Those "backwards savages" are all better people then you or your family will ever hope to be.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Not when we have the technology to accomplish close to the same without letting that genie out of the bottle.
1) there is not a mass concentration of people to target
2) there is not a effort of the civilian population to support the enemy
3) there is not a government that cares about the people; such a bombing would not have an effect on the leadership.

What exists is the lack of political will and the attempt to do the conflict on the cheap (manpower and munitions) plus the inability to separate the conflict from nation building.

Military doctrine is to pound the enemy into the ground, not allow them to retreat to fight another day.

Our politicians feel that if we show compassion, it will be returned and all can hold hands.
2000 of the 2100 lives lost have been due to the politicians not wanting to finish the conflict by removing the fighting ability of the enemy.

There was no reason why a hammer/anvil approach could not have been used instead of the carrot/stick. Hammer/anvil does not need to be used against the civilian population; the opponent will attempt to outrun the civilians to protect their skins rather than hide among them. If they hide; then the search/destroy comes into play - sweep the village.

 

[nextJin]

Not when we have the technology to accomplish close to the same without letting that genie out of the bottle.
1) there is not a mass concentration of people to target
2) there is not a effort of the civilian population to support the enemy
3) there is not a government that cares about the people; such a bombing would not have an effect on the leadership.

What exists is the lack of political will and the attempt to do the conflict on the cheap (manpower and munitions) plus the inability to separate the conflict from nation building.

Military doctrine is to pound the enemy into the ground, not allow them to retreat to fight another day.

Our politicians feel that if we show compassion, it will be returned and all can hold hands.
2000 of the 2100 lives lost have been due to the politicians not wanting to finish the conflict by removing the fighting ability of the enemy.

There was no reason why a hammer/anvil approach could not have been used instead of the carrot/stick. Hammer/anvil does not need to be used against the civilian population; the opponent will attempt to outrun the civilians to protect their skins rather than hide among them. If they hide; then the search/destroy comes into play - sweep the village.

All irrelevant in regards to fighting an insurgency.

Eaglekeeper 0 - Petraeus 1

 

[Lemon law]

If you knew in 2001 that more than 2,100 US service members would lose their lives, and tens of thousands of others would lose their limbs fighting a protracted, unwinnable war in Afghanistan, would that not justify the use of nuclear weapons, at the cost of a couple million backwards savages, in order to efficiently send the message that the United States is not to be fucked with?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Nebor, the use of nukes in Afghanistan merely would have told the rest of the world that the USA can not be tolerated by a civilized world. As Nebor conveniently forgets, the USA is not the only nations with nuclear weapons. And that every other nation would have no choice but to ally against the United States. And the easiest way to bring the USA to its knees would be simply refusing to trade with the United States or lend Uncle Sammy any more money.

Think Nebor think, if the USA can't even forcefully pacify a nation of only 31 million by in large still mired in the stone age, how can the USA forcefully pacify a world of 6 billion as every nation on earth allies against the USA?

As I also agree with many on these forums that EK reasoning is superficial and short regarding US lives being lost because the USA was woefully unprepared for WW2. When it turned into an US advantage instead in WW2 battles by land or sea.

But to just confine the question to Japan bombing Pearl Harbor that decimated our pacific fleet battleships, it kept the larger US pacific fleet from prematurely taking on a battle hardened Japanese fleet with far superior air craft. And anyone who has even superficially studied the battle of mid-way can only come to the conclusion that 1941 era US planes were totally inferior to Japanese planes. Both technologically and in pilot training. As we can only attribute the US coming out on top to breaking the Japanese Naval code and some incredible blind luck. With the main final blind luck being in having the japs carrier screen down low fighting off a wave of torpedo planes just as a wave of much better dive bombers blundered into the Japanese carriers while they were rearming their planes. But even then, the Japanese, never a populous nation, proceeded to spread themselves way too thin as they bit off way more than they could chew. Giving the USA economy time to build the ships and superior planes that could take on the Japs at a superior competitive advantage. By the time the battle of Layte Gulf came around, the Japanese Navy was largely useless because the US navy had chocked off the Japanese oil supply. Nor could the Japanese win the battle of attrition, as they could never replace the ships, planes, and more importantly their superbly trained pilots.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Yes, very likely.
They knew the US Navy was the only thing that could keep them from dominating the entire Pacific (even in its "gutted" state in 1941, which BTW we still had one of the most modern navies in the world at the time), as the British and Australians were busy fighting Hitler and Mussolini in Europe and North Africa and didn't have the resources to spare for a two front war.
Hence the whole surprise attack to destroy as much of our Pacific fleet as possible in one blow.

Seriously, your posts lately have made me lose a great deal of respect that I had for you.

The US military was unable to mount a deterrent against the Japanese conquest well before '42.

That is one reason is why the Japanese were able to sweep down through SW Asia and the islands of the East Indies/Philippines.

The US was unable to put up any decent resistance.
We had pockets of areas but not enough to turn the tide; it was a delaying action for 2-3 years, buying time to rebuild.

The attack against the fleet was to ensure that there would be no direct Naval support to challenge the island hopping going on. The Japanese air cover in their push made it easy against what resistance was available. Had we lost the carriers also; New Zealand and Australia would have been isolated. the Japanese were already knocking on their door from New Guinea.