U.S. Military Can't Even Fight One War Today

But what is your source ?

If a U.S. Navy CSG were to have sailed through the Taiwan Strait it would have made the news.

I've been following the Stennis CSG movement since it deployed after picking up it's air wing off of Southern California back in January.

Are you sure you're not confusing the Taiwan Strait with the contested islands in the South China Sea ? The chi-coms started rattling their sabers when the Stennis CSG passed through the South China Sea earlier this month. In fact they hanged around in the South China Sea for a week before heading to the P.I.'s.

 

From what I understood the Stennis went though the Luzon Strait on March 3rd and was said to have gone through the Taiwan Strait last week.

Now If I made a mistake I will admit it but this is what I was told.

I know they were operating in the South China sea and China was freaking out.

AA

 

that is funny, I do not remember Congress declaring war, what I remember is congress deciding to let the decider decide

 

trump is center of the isle, some have even called him liberal RINO... the far right is against him

do we really want to compare the candidates legs... do you think trumps or cruz's legs are sexier?

.

 

The Stennis CSG might have gotten close to the Taiwan Strait but I seriously doubt that the SSG would go out of it's way to pass through the strait. Obama doesn't have a pair to do something like that.


The USS Stennis has it's own website. -> http://www.stennis.navy.mil/

Don't see any mentioning of transiting the Taiwan Strait. But they posted about their patrols in the South China Sea.

Excerpts:

http://www.stennis.navy.mil/#news


Now you can always drop a dime and call the USS Stennis by using your phone to confirm if the Stennis CSG transitted the Taiwan Strasit. Yep you can do that now days.

Public Affairs Office

Contact
Quarterdeck
Call: (360) 627-2508 or
(360) 627-2509

USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74)
Attn: PAO
Unit 100175 Box 1
FPO, AP 96615-2874

Office: (619) 545-6663 (at sea)

 

Wasn't there a U.S. Destroyer that went through the strait last month?

AA

 

Just to add I believe that China must be reminded who is the Big Dog in the Pacific.

It's not smart from a Strategic Aspect to bring in a USN. Carrier Group that close but what exactly would China do about it?

NOTHING.

They would not do a thing.

AA

 

Although China has been helpful as far as North Korea.

China is just as upset with the North as we are.

AA

 

I just noticed this.

No wonder there's no money for maintenance and training for war when the Navy has been forced by the Obama PC White House to spend $150. per gallon for PC green fuel instead of paying the normal price of $2.88 per gallon for JP fuel.

Pentagon paid $150 per gallon for green jet fuel: report -> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...id-150-gallon-green-jet-fuel-report/?page=all

 

I think they use this type of fuel when close to other Nations.

AA

 

I could see a destroyer transiting through the Taiwan Strait but not an entire CSG.

To the best of my knowledge the last time an American carrier has transited through the Taiwan Strait was during the 1990's during the Clinton administration and it was called a stupid move to put a carrier in a confined area with in range of shore based chi-com aircraft.

 

Yeah....a Destroyer did go through.

I was told the Stennis Group would also go though but now I think they just came close.

AA

 

When the story first broke two years ago that Obama has forced the military to pay $150. per gallon for fuel I said wait a minute. DARPA has been working on developing a PC green fuel that would cost around $4 per gallon why would Obama go around DARPA ?

DARPA created the internet for the U.S. Air Force and it didn't happen over night.

DARPA has it's own website with a search engine. You might enjoy seeing all of the strange crap that DARPA is working on. -> http://www.darpa.mil/

 

They apparently forgot how long we were Germany and Japan 'nation building', not to mention they didn't consider the 'culture' they were going to try and build a 'nation' with, basically a tribal clan stone age culture built around a violent political cult. Add another 100 years to the program for that ...

True, Clinton did cut the military down; he was inspired by Dick Cheney, and the reductions matched the reductions Cheney planned, except for the high dollar pork programs.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/20/u...e-forces-by-25-in-5-years.html?pagewanted=all

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/01/cutting_the_defense_budget.html

Same here. Take care of it early while it's still a small problem, and save countless lives, on both sides for that matter.

 

No, it wasn't a 'needless war', nor was it 'started by traitor Bush'. We had treaty obligations, and Saddam started it knowing full well we had them and would honor them. And, only pretty ignorant people would believe we should have sat there and waited for Saddam to die of old age, and he offered up far more than enough provocation over the years violating the cease fire almost daily; he should have been taken out much earlier, but nobody had the will to do so, especially Clinton.

 

Baloney. Even Kofi Annan knew it was needless but was too afraid to criticize traitor Bush.

Professor Ben Ferencz who was involved in the Nuremberg Tribunals agreed that Bush should go on trial for violations of the Nuremberg rules. Now read the Downing Street Memo and you will readily see that traitor Bush committed treason.

 

Nobody cares what either of those clowns think about anything. <Rule 3>

Want to hear about Kofi Annan and the kind of stuff he's supported? I mean besides his raking in big bucks off of the oil for food deal and stuffing his pockets.

 

Yea, right. Congress and the Democrats gave the President a bunch of flowers and that was to solve everything.

This is why I avoid these coprolite political discussions. Because some individuals will twist things any way they can to try and make things come out the way they want. And to hell with things like reality.

I am done, come back to me when you want to talk about reality and not fantasy.

 

Have you ever read this ? -> Saddam Hussein Talks to the FBI: -> http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB279/

What Saddam revealed, after eight years of Clinton he beleved that G.W. Bush was bluffing, that Bush didn't have the cajones to remove him from power. Bush wasn't bluffing.

Saddam also said after his capture that he didn't blame Bush but British intelligence that fed the Bush administration with false intelligence that he still had WMD's

Saddam said he also was almost convinced he still had WMD's. It ends up he still unknowing still had WMD's buried in the desert. As we know, the anti Bush people don't consider muster or sarin gas to be a WMD's, they want to see nukes.

FYI:
During the Clinton administration Osama bin Laden was paying close attention on how Clinton was dealing with Saddam Hussein.
After Mogadishu when the "Blackhawk Down" incident Clinton had the talk but not the walk. Osama bin Laden looked upon Clinton as a pantywaist and believed that Al Qaeda could attack America on it's own soil and America's only response would be nothing more than Tomahawk cruise missiles. Unknown to Bin Laden. on 9-11-01 G.W. Bush would be President and Bush was no pantywaist, Bush had the talk and the walk.

Excerpt from Bin Laden's first Fatwa when he declared war on America:

 

Obama approved the plan because the Republicans were threatening a default on government obligations and paying people who couldn't find jobs. and based on an understanding that the Republicans would compromise rather than watch their military spending go down. It's absurd to suggest that Obama wanted spending cuts at a time the economy was struggling to recover from the Great recession.

Yet in the winter of 2013, Boehner and Cantor rejected the entitlement-reform-for-tax-hike grand deal that Obama was offering (which would have caused a civil war within the GOP) and instead embraced the binding spending controls with automatic sequester cuts to enforce them. For liberals this turned out to be a nightmare scenario.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/04/keep-the-spending-caps

But fair enough. If you want to blame Obama, then thank "his" spending cuts for helping bring the budget deficits he inherited down by 2/3.

 

If you remember, Obama demanded that 50% of the sequestration cuts take place with national security.

But no cuts were made in the social engineering of the military. There would be cuts on the ranges and training exercises but no cuts in PC diversity classes.
There would be no cuts on ordering the military to purchase PC green biofuels at $150 per gallon instead of using fossil fuels that cost $3.88 per gallon.

When Obama signed the sequestration into law, Obama said if Congress tried to overturn the sequestration that he would veto any attempt that Congress made trying to end the sequestration.

As the liberal Bob Woodward said, the sequestration came from the Obama White House, it's Obama's sequestration, Obama owns it.

 

As the conservative Heritage Foundation article points out, it was the Republican who wanted the sequestration spending cuts.


Yet in the winter of 2013, Boehner and Cantor rejected the entitlement-reform-for-tax-hike grand deal that Obama was offering (which would have caused a civil war within the GOP) and instead embraced the binding spending controls with automatic sequester cuts to enforce them. For liberals this turned out to be a nightmare scenario.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/04/keep-the-spending-caps

Then you're giving Obama the credit due for reducing the $1.4 billion deficit he inherited from Bush by 2/3. I'll accept that.

 

You have a reading comprehension, back when Obama signed the sequestration into law threatening to veto any attempt to repeal the sequestration, Republicans came out saying back in 2011 they made a mistake for giving Obama what he wanted, to downsize the military.

But soon Obama realized he (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up by signing off on his sequestration, Obama needs more of my money to pay for free stuff for those Democrats who have the government monkey on their backs. .

 

But as the conservative Heritage Foundation points out, Boehner and Cantor embraced the binding spending controls with automatic sequester cuts to enforce them.


Conservatives are constantly yapping about what big spenders Obama and the Democrats are. And you're arguing they are responsible for the biggest government spending cuts since WWII?

Could be.

 

Given that no further wars should even be considered under current leadership and rules, cuts in the military are appropriate. At this point only concerns over Continental defense, nuclear deterrence and R & D could justify spending. If our leadership has rejected nuclear retaliation then we can stop spending on that.