• 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!

5 Years Ago America Was A Super Power, Today Who Will Fill The Vacancy ?

I doubt it, the damage inflicted over the past 4 years and 8 months are severe.

But it's been in the making before Obama unfortunately appeared in the ghetto of the Southside of Chicago.

Our culture, customs and language have been under attack by the left for decades.

You have 48 % who don't pay any individual income taxes, half of America are receiving some form of public assistance and you have the radical left who want to reward criminality with amnesty.

I think a lot of this is due to our lack of a manufacturing industry. There just aren't enough job opportunities available for everyone anymore. We have too many people and not enough jobs. This is one reason why I'm against amnesty or allowing any more illegals to enter our country and work. I also think we need to start deporting those who are here illegally, not give them amnesty, and we need to put limits on how many people we allow to enter the country legally for jobs as well.
 
I shudder to think what a worthless nation we would be if our only measure of greatness were military power. Instead, we are the dominant culture in the world. Everyone eats our food. Everyone drinks our drinks. Everyone wears our clothes. Everyone watches our movies. There are people who are arrested in other countries who are surprised to discover that their nation doesn't have Miranda rights because our system of law is better known to them than their own is.

I get that the OP is just whining more about Obama and partisan hackery, but please let's not mistake blowing things up and killing people for greatness.

It's not that military is the only issue, it's just the most glaringly separating issue. The other issues are give and take with any nation, western liberal democracy a given. It's not about blowing things up (generally a reasonable pastime) and killing people for what? It's about having the only invisible planes. Until a country has something that the US cannot see they are very exposed.
 
Last edited:
lol what a bunch of flaming bull****.
Largest GDP in the world, largest and most high-tech military in the world, largest global military presence, 10 aircraft carriers (and not the dinky ski jump ramp kinds for only VTOL aircraft either), and we're NOT a superpower? Author's definition of "superpower" must include possession of starships or the Death Star or something.

We may technically be superior militarily, but don't fool your self in thinking that we havn't been knocked down a couple of pegs.

Whenever America stupidly elects a President who's proves to be a weak leader the world turns into a more unstable and dangerous place.
 
Lets put it this way, five years ago we could have put two carrier strike groups(CSG) and one Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) in the 6th Fleet AOR while still having two CSG in the 5th Fleet AOR and one CSG in the 7th Fleet AOR.

You may remember back when G,W, Bush was the military Cn'C while we were fighting two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan there were always two CSG's in the 5th AOR 24/7. Then the PRC believed they were able to take on the U.S. Navy and sink two carriers. They began rattling their sabers and were conducting large fleet exercises in the Taiwan Straits.

What was Cn'C Bush able to do ? He as able to put four CSG's in the area of Taiwan and we still had two CSG conducting combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Chinese blinked. No way Jose could they take on and sink four American carriers. So they put their saber back in to their scabber and went back to the drawing board on how do you sink four carriers ?

The U.S. Navy is suppose to have a "surge" CSG that's suppose to be able to put to sea and be able to fight in times of an emergency. Last month the Navy's CONO said that the crew of the "surge" carrier aren't properly trained to put that carrier to sea and be able to fight. They aren't being properly trained. The carrier and it's CSG escorts sit tied up to their wharfs at Norfolk.

Why aren't the carrier crew properly trained ? Could it be that instead of training to be deployed they are being trained in diversity training ?

Just last month Sec. of Def. Hagel said the main mission of the U.S. military was not fighting wars against our enemies but fighting sexual assaults in the military with social engineering.

The single most expensive part of our military is our carrier force - and it's not just the ships and the mammoth logistics chain they require, but also the air wings and their own logistics chain. Generally speaking, in 'normal' times, about one-third of our carrier force is deployed, one-third is in training or 'work-ups' (but still usually (but not always) available for surge ops), and one-third are in drydock or pierside for required maintenance, repairs, and upgrades that the crew cannot do themselves.

Could the Chinese sink four carriers? No. They might be able to sink one, but not four...but that almost certainly wouldn't be their goal. Instead, if the Chinese are smart - and they are - instead of trying to sink four carriers, they'll just put them out of action...which is not so hard. All it takes is a strike that would (1) screw up flight deck operations, or (2) slow down the ship to the point that she couldn't conduct flight ops. One torpedo to the stern, which puts even one of the four screws out of operation...and flight ops are instantly degraded until she can make it to a drydock big enough to handle her. This is why - although I dearly love my carriers - I think we're putting way too many eggs in one basket. For the price of one carrier and its logistics chain, we could easily have five or more destroyers or attack subs or a combination thereof...and except for two factors, these are not that much less capable than a carrier IMO, and there's things that they can do that a carrier simply can't.

Of those two factors, one is the ability to achieve and maintain air supremacy anywhere as soon as a carrier's within five hundred miles. Perhaps the greater advantage that carriers hold, is their visibility - hence the old sayings of "4.5 acres of sovereign U.S. territory where it's needed, when it's needed" and "the president's first question is often "where's the nearest carrier"". And it does get the attention of foreign nations when they know a carrier is steaming out there somewhere off the horizon. By their very presence (even if only implied), they very effectively represent the mailed fist inside of the velvet glove of diplomacy - they've forestalled many a crisis by their very presence without a single combat sortie. BUT the moment one is disabled by one simple torpedo - or terrorist attack, for that matter - the air of invincibility will go away...and I'd much rather we learn our lessons ahead of time, that it's a lot harder to kill five new Zumwalt-class destroyers or (especially) five new Virginia-class attack submarines...and they are almost as capable in a shooting war as one carrier.
 
We may technically be superior militarily, but don't fool your self in thinking that we havn't been knocked down a couple of pegs.

Whenever America stupidly elects a President who's proves to be a weak leader the world turns into a more unstable and dangerous place.

Really? Just because we don't go physically kicking ass everywhere doesn't mean we have a weak leader. Sun Tzu said it best: "For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."

This is what Your Boy Dubya never understood.
 
Really? Just because we don't go physically kicking
ass everywhere doesn't mean we have a weak leader. Sun Tzu said it best: "For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."

This is what Your Boy Dubya never understood.

LOL...How ironic that you quote Sun Tzu.

Jeesus what happened to you ?

Ronald Reagan didn't fire one missle at Iran or at the Soviet Union.

But we got our hostages back almost immediately and the Soviets ? Well...

The rest of the world, including our enemies understands what a real leader as a American President means.

And under Obama this world has grown increasingly dangerous.

As far as our Carrier force is concerned it will remain until new technology makes it impractical and will NVER absolutely dissapear.

I mean you were supposeldy on a Aircraft Carrier but never understood the value of a "show of force".

Our Boomers are what keeps our big enemies somewhat honest anyway, but the piss ant Countries aren't really threatened by a ballistic missle sub and sometimes a Carrier battlegroup in the right place at the right time is the most effective form of diplomacy their is
 
lol what a bunch of flaming bull****. Largest GDP in the world, largest and most high-tech military in the world, largest global military presence, 10 aircraft carriers (and not the dinky ski jump ramp kinds for only VTOL aircraft either), and we're NOT a superpower? Author's definition of "superpower" must include possession of starships or the Death Star or something.

Someone will always have the largest GDP or military presence. That doesn't make them a superpower though.

A superpower is a country that has the ability to greatly influence other nations toward its own interests. It's kind of hard to argue against the author's conclusions. Pres. Obama clearly wields as much influence abroad as he does at home these days and he struggles to sway his own party most of the time.

Fortunately for the United States those loss of influence will almost certainly cease when our next POTUS is sworn in.
 
LOL...How ironic that you quote Sun Tzu.

Jeesus what happened to you ?

Ronald Reagan didn't fire one missle at Iran or at the Soviet Union.

But we got our hostages back almost immediately and the Soviets ? Well...

The rest of the world, including our enemies understands what a real leader as a American President means.

And under Obama this world has grown increasingly dangerous.

As far as our Carrier force is concerned it will remain until new technology makes it impractical and will NVER absolutely dissapear.

I mean you were supposeldy on a Aircraft Carrier but never understood the value of a "show of force".

Our Boomers are what keeps our big enemies somewhat honest anyway, but the piss ant Countries aren't really threatened by a ballistic missle sub and sometimes a Carrier battlegroup in the right place at the right time is the most effective form of diplomacy their is

But Reagan did engage in Iran-Contra - and if Obama had done anything even close to similar to that, he would have been impeached by both houses of Congress and fired. But since it was Reagan who did it, well, that makes it okay. And when it comes to the hostages in Iran, perhaps you should read up on the 'October Surprise' - I'm still not convinced that it happened, but the timing was very, very suspect.

Don't get me wrong - I've said many times (on a different blog (this one example is in the comments)) that Reagan was one of our five best presidents ever. Why? Because even given the lasting damage he did to our economy (we're STILL under Reaganomics to this day), he won the Cold War - even though he was able to play brinksmanship without it ever turning hot - for if it had, all of human civilization could have quite literally been at risk. Tell me - how many liberals and progressives would say that about Reagan? Pretty much only me - but I call 'em as I see them, and the reason I call myself a progressive is because overall, their positions are the closest to what I see as the best for national progress and success.

And 'never' is a long, long time - and is almost never the case when it comes to anything made by man.
 
LOL...How ironic that you quote Sun Tzu.


Jeesus what happened to you ?

Ronald Reagan didn't fire one missle at Iran or at the Soviet Union.

But we got our hostages back almost immediately and the Soviets ? Well...

The rest of the world, including our enemies understands what a real leader as a American President means.

And under Obama this world has grown increasingly dangerous.

As far as our Carrier force is concerned it will remain until new technology makes it impractical and will NVER absolutely dissapear.

I mean you were supposeldy on a Aircraft Carrier but never understood the value of a "show of force".

Our Boomers are what keeps our big enemies somewhat honest anyway, but the piss ant Countries aren't really threatened by a ballistic missle sub and sometimes a Carrier battlegroup in the right place at the right time is the most effective form of diplomacy their is

But Reagan did engage in Iran-Contra - and if Obama had done anything even close to similar to that, he would have been impeached by both houses of Congress and fired. But since it was Reagan who did it, well, that makes it okay. And when it comes to the hostages in Iran, perhaps you should read up on the 'October Surprise' - I'm still not convinced that it happened, but the timing was very, very suspect.

Don't get me wrong - I've said many times (on a different blog (this one example is in the comments)) that Reagan was one of our five best presidents ever. Why? Because even given the lasting damage he did to our economy (we're STILL under Reaganomics to this day), he won the Cold War - even though he was able to play brinksmanship without it ever turning hot - for if it had, all of human civilization could have quite literally been at risk. Tell me - how many liberals and progressives would say that about Reagan? Pretty much only me - but I call 'em as I see them, and the reason I call myself a progressive is because overall, their positions are the closest to what I see as the best for national progress and success.

And 'never' is a long, long time - and is almost never the case when it comes to anything made by man.

I didn't bring up Iran Contra and befors testifying to Obama's purity I would ask you to look at the real reason we set up and maintained a Consulate in Benghazi.

A consulate that was teeming with CIA.

And progress is of-course subjective.

Progress to me is our Government adhering firmly to our Constitution.

If you want to change it then go through the process spelled out in the Constitution.

The fact we elected a President who openly declared our Constitution as a charter of negative liberties speaks volumes about the state of education in this Country.
 
The single most expensive part of our military is our carrier force - and it's not just the ships and the mammoth logistics chain they require, but also the air wings and their own logistics chain. Generally speaking, in 'normal' times, about one-third of our carrier force is deployed, one-third is in training or 'work-ups' (but still usually (but not always) available for surge ops), and one-third are in drydock or pierside for required maintenance, repairs, and upgrades that the crew cannot do themselves.

Could the Chinese sink four carriers? No. They might be able to sink one, but not four...but that almost certainly wouldn't be their goal. Instead, if the Chinese are smart - and they are - instead of trying to sink four carriers, they'll just put them out of action...which is not so hard. All it takes is a strike that would (1) screw up flight deck operations, or (2) slow down the ship to the point that she couldn't conduct flight ops. One torpedo to the stern, which puts even one of the four screws out of operation...and flight ops are instantly degraded until she can make it to a drydock big enough to handle her. This is why - although I dearly love my carriers - I think we're putting way too many eggs in one basket. For the price of one carrier and its logistics chain, we could easily have five or more destroyers or attack subs or a combination thereof...and except for two factors, these are not that much less capable than a carrier IMO, and there's things that they can do that a carrier simply can't.

Of those two factors, one is the ability to achieve and maintain air supremacy anywhere as soon as a carrier's within five hundred miles. Perhaps the greater advantage that carriers hold, is their visibility - hence the old sayings of "4.5 acres of sovereign U.S. territory where it's needed, when it's needed" and "the president's first question is often "where's the nearest carrier"". And it does get the attention of foreign nations when they know a carrier is steaming out there somewhere off the horizon. By their very presence (even if only implied), they very effectively represent the mailed fist inside of the velvet glove of diplomacy - they've forestalled many a crisis by their very presence without a single combat sortie. BUT the moment one is disabled by one simple torpedo - or terrorist attack, for that matter - the air of invincibility will go away...and I'd much rather we learn our lessons ahead of time, that it's a lot harder to kill five new Zumwalt-class destroyers or (especially) five new Virginia-class attack submarines...and they are almost as capable in a shooting war as one carrier.

The Navy's "Rule of Three" 1/3 of the fleet on station in it's assigned AOR, 1/3 of the fleet building up for deployment or in route too it's AOR or returning from it's AOR and 1/3 of the fleet in port for maintenance, repair and shore training has been the Navy's SOP since post WW ll. But this is no longer the rule of todays Obama's PC Navy.

Here is why I question if America is still a Superpower ? A superpower can project power any time and keep that projected power in a hot spot in the world for extended periods be it for a few months to a few years. Obama's Navy can no longer do it. Before Obama's sequestration, there was already $800 billion in defense cuts by the Obama administration during Obama's first term. The there's the additional Obama sequestration. Then you have the billions for liberal social engineering of our military that are exempt from sequestration. The funding of these social engineering experimentations are taken from other operation expenses.

It cost $7 million dollars per week to operate a destroyer. It cost $40 million dollars per week to operate a Nimits class aircraft carrier.

Last week the CNO Adm. Jonathan Greenert said.

"Navy Will Need More Funds if Syria Standoff Extends into October."

>" If the ongoing standoff between Syria and U.S. navy ships extends into October, the Navy may have to reshuffle funds to support the massed ships in the Eastern Mediterranean, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert said Thursday at an event at the American Enterprise Institute.

According to estimates from Greenert, each Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) costs $1.5 million per missile, a destroyer costs $7 million a week to operate and a Nimitz-class carrier, with the accompanying air wing, costs $40 million a week, according to estimates from Greenert.

“For the remainder of this year — the weeks in September — we’re comfortable that we could accommodate the operations,” Greenert said.
“Many of those ships are already over there and already budgeted to be over there.”..."< -> CNO: Navy Will Need More Funds if Syria Standoff Extends into October | USNI News
 
I didn't bring up Iran Contra and befors testifying to Obama's purity I would ask you to look at the real reason we set up and maintained a Consulate in Benghazi.

A consulate that was teeming with CIA.

And progress is of-course subjective.

Progress to me is our Government adhering firmly to our Constitution.

If you want to change it then go through the process spelled out in the Constitution.

The fact we elected a President who openly declared our Constitution as a charter of negative liberties speaks volumes about the state of education in this Country.

Gee, it's funny how the Right is so much for Constitutional rights...as long as they're rights that the Right wants. But when it comes to Constitutional rights that the Right doesn't like, well, let's get rid of them!
 
Gee, it's funny how the Right is so much for Constitutional rights...as long as they're rights that the Right wants. But when it comes to Constitutional rights that the Right doesn't like, well, let's get rid of them!

The left is no different. Welcome to politics 101.
 
The Navy's "Rule of Three" 1/3 of the fleet on station in it's assigned AOR, 1/3 of the fleet building up for deployment or in route too it's AOR or returning from it's AOR and 1/3 of the fleet in port for maintenance, repair and shore training has been the Navy's SOP since post WW ll. But this is no longer the rule of todays Obama's PC Navy.

Now I know you know that our Navy is planned out not years, but decades in advance. The state of our Navy today was more likely planned out by the Department of the Navy back during the Clinton administration. I remember even then reading how our ships were planned out all the way to the 2020's. And it has to be this way because of the length of time it takes to design a class of ship, build the first in that class, find out all the problems, and fix those problems in the design phase before the next one can be built.

Here is why I question if America is still a Superpower ? A superpower can project power any time and keep that projected power in a hot spot in the world for extended periods be it for a few months to a few years. Obama's Navy can no longer do it. Before Obama's sequestration, there was already $800 billion in defense cuts by the Obama administration during Obama's first term. The there's the additional Obama sequestration. Then you have the billions for liberal social engineering of our military that are exempt from sequestration. The funding of these social engineering experimentations are taken from other operation expenses.

'Scuse you, but there's PLENTY of blame to go around when it comes to sequestration - especially since I heard several conservative pundits say - in the days when sequestration first began taking effect - how it was obviously not as big a deal as the Obama administration had claimed it would be.

And I'd REALLY like to see a reference for this $800B in defense cuts only in Obama's first term.

It cost $7 million dollars per week to operate a destroyer. It cost $40 million dollars per week to operate a Nimits class aircraft carrier.

Which supports what I said in my previous comment that it's better to have five destroyers than one carrier.

Last week the CNO Adm. Jonathan Greenert said. "Navy Will Need More Funds if Syria Standoff Extends into October."
>" If the ongoing standoff between Syria and U.S. navy ships extends into October, the Navy may have to reshuffle funds to support the massed ships in the Eastern Mediterranean, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert said Thursday at an event at the American Enterprise Institute.

And if the Republicans in Congress had actually tried to negotiate in good faith, this wouldn't be a problem because there wouldn't be a sequester today - but they CAN'T negotiate in good faith on anything now, because the moment they do, they're called RINO's and primaried from the Right. Our government was DESIGNED to force all sides to negotiate in order to get legislation passed, but it's YOUR side that is refusing to do so. And if you want a concrete example, I strongly remember how in the debt ceiling crisis, John Boehner came out proudly claiming that he got 98% of what he wanted in negotiations with Obama...and he was immediately castigated by the Right for giving up on the remaining 2%! Getting 98% of what y'all wanted wasn't good enough - it was 100%...or nothing! That's not the way our government's supposed to work, AR.
 
Below is a commentary. Lets face it, we are no longer a super power. Our military has become a hollow military force. President Obama is an incompetent commander in chief and we don't have the influence in the word that we had five years ago.

Iran, since Bush and his vanity wars gave the Ayatollah's hegemony over the entire region -- and it just cost $3T!
 
'Scuse you, but there's PLENTY of blame to go around when it comes to sequestration - especially since I heard several conservative pundits say - in the days when sequestration first began taking effect - how it was obviously not as big a deal as the Obama administration had claimed it would be.

And I'd REALLY like to see a reference for this $800B in defense cuts only in Obama's first term.



Which supports what I said in my previous comment that it's better to have five destroyers than one carrier.

The Obama sequestration is Obama's sequestration. It was the liberal Bob Woodward of the Washington Post who revealed that the idea of sequestration came from the Obama White House.

Defense spending accounts for 19 % of the federal budget. Obama's sequestration requires that 50 % of the cuts be made with defense spending. Obama got exactly what he wanted.

With in hours after Congress passed Obama's sequestration President Obama signed it into law and said if Congress tried to repeal sequestration that he would veto any attempt.

The $800 billion of military cuts during Obama's first four years in the White House is a conservative number. I have heard higher numbers being used.

Remember that President G.W. Bush kept the funding of two wars and fighting the war against Islamist terrorist separate from the defense budget. When Obama became POTUS he combined both with in defense spending. So even with the $800 billion in defense cuts it doesn't show up.

The Obama administration has a long track history of deceiving the American people of cooking the numbers. A perfect example are Obama's claim of deporting more illegal aliens than any other President. It's a lie. It takes a court order to deport an illegal alien. What Obama has done was to include those illegals who are caught at the border and are turned back to Mexico as being deported.

You may remember when Congress caught Obama in another lie and cooking the numbers of the size of the Navy's combat fleet force. To make the Navy's combat force to seem larger, the Obama administration started counting hospital ships, coastal craft, garbage scows as part of the Navy's combat fleet force.

You can't trust anything that comes out of Obama's White House.
 
The Obama sequestration is Obama's sequestration. It was the liberal Bob Woodward of the Washington Post who revealed that the idea of sequestration came from the Obama White House.

Defense spending accounts for 19 % of the federal budget. Obama's sequestration requires that 50 % of the cuts be made with defense spending. Obama got exactly what he wanted.

With in hours after Congress passed Obama's sequestration President Obama signed it into law and said if Congress tried to repeal sequestration that he would veto any attempt.

The $800 billion of military cuts during Obama's first four years in the White House is a conservative number. I have heard higher numbers being used.

Remember that President G.W. Bush kept the funding of two wars and fighting the war against Islamist terrorist separate from the defense budget. When Obama became POTUS he combined both with in defense spending. So even with the $800 billion in defense cuts it doesn't show up.

The Obama administration has a long track history of deceiving the American people of cooking the numbers. A perfect example are Obama's claim of deporting more illegal aliens than any other President. It's a lie. It takes a court order to deport an illegal alien. What Obama has done was to include those illegals who are caught at the border and are turned back to Mexico as being deported.

You may remember when Congress caught Obama in another lie and cooking the numbers of the size of the Navy's combat fleet force. To make the Navy's combat force to seem larger, the Obama administration started counting hospital ships, coastal craft, garbage scows as part of the Navy's combat fleet force.

You can't trust anything that comes out of Obama's White House.

Again, I see no reference to show an $800B defense spending cut - and the way you wrote it, that $800B has already been cut. Please show me your proof - I want to see a solid reference. And when it comes to defense, our Navy is ALREADY more powerful than the rest of the world's navies combined, so I don't see how it makes any sense to keep it at the same level of spending, much less give it any increase in funding.
 
Again, I see no reference to show an $800B defense spending cut - and the way you wrote it, that $800B has already been cut. Please show me your proof - I want to see a solid reference. And when it comes to defense, our Navy is ALREADY more powerful than the rest of the world's navies combined, so I don't see how it makes any sense to keep it at the same level of spending, much less give it any increase in funding.

Defense Budget is Being Cut: By Any Way You Look at It


■Defense spending, on the other hand, under the Obama Administration will remain at historic lows, especially when compared to other times of war, yet this is where Democrats continue to cut.
■Defense spending will decline every year as a percentage of GDP. At the same time, spending across the federal government is projected to be higher than its 40-year average.
■Defense spending was 4.2 percent of GDP in 2012, down from 4.5 percent in 2011.
■As a historical comparison, using OMB tables, defense spending was 37.5 percent of GDP in 1945 (WWII), in 1953 (Korea) it was 14.2 percent, and at the peak of Vietnam (1968) it was 9.4 percent.
■OMB projects defense spending will be 3.5 percent of GDP in 2014; 3.1 percent in 2015; 3.0 percent in 2016; and 2.9 percent in 2017.
■As the CBO director testified in October 2011, defense spending is “well below the average for defense spending since World War II.”
Defense spending should naturally be subject to the same scrutiny as all other federal programs. Any claim that defense spending is recklessly out of control, however, and that cutting it will solve our fiscal crisis, simply does not hold up to the facts.

Obama Sequester Exacerbates Obama Defense Cuts | Policy Paper | Senate Republican Policy Committee




< Pentagon's Carter: Choices Made Under Sequestration Are 'Dumb' | USNI News >

>" The money is there to pay for forward-deployed ships and aircraft, he said, but that has meant cutting back on people and ships ready to surge forward when world events require naval action.

"People say, 'Well, I don't understand this impact of sequestration. I don't see anything,' " Greenert said. The spending cuts are in areas away from deployment, he said.

The Navy has two aircraft carrier groups deployed - one in the Pacific and a second in the Persian Gulf region - and two amphibious assault ship groups deployed in each of the regions. But it has only one other carrier group and amphibious group with enough training time to be in ready reserve, Greenert said, and it needs three of each type of group prepared to surge.

"That's the part that concerns me," he said, noting, for example, that Virginia Beach residents aren't hearing as much jet noise from Oceana these days. "We don't have enough of our airplanes operating," he said..."<



>" Personnel expenses account for half of all defense spending, he said. "If we keep growing at the rate we're growing on entitlements - and this includes health care and a whole host of things that we have to put in - that's going to get up to 70 or 80 percent of our budget when you get up into 2022-23," he said. "That's extraordinary." "< Admiral: Brace for similar sequester impact in 2014 | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com
 
Conrad Black? When did he get out? Must have been good behaviour. Odd that he refers to Canada as 'we'- last I heard he'd renounced his citizenship so he could accept a British peerage.
He's about three step to the right of Attila the Hun, that guy (not that it matters in this context) and he's never been shy about beaking off just to get the spotlight on him.
 
It's expected, for my entire life America was a super power. Our enemies always held us in awe. It's going to take some getting use to not being # 1 any more. ####, when we want to put some Americans in space we have to ask the Russians for a lift.

I like the idea of giving Canada one of our Nimitz class carriers so they can project power. The Canucks have always had cajones. Just look at their combat record during WW ll and they done a damn good job in Afghanistan.

Back during the Vietnam war while thousands of pantywaist libs were fleeing to Canada, 34,000 Canuks were fleeing to America to join the U.S. Army and the Marines Corps to fight in Vietnam. So the Canadian people do have the balls to be a super power.

The US has the most powerful military right now and will have it for then next 20 years. China would be lucky to have about 20% of the US military power right now. It has one carrier based on a 20 or so year old Russian ship.


As for Canada, it would take our entire military budget to operate and equip one US carrier (and some of its supporting fleet)
 
Gee, it's funny how the Right is so much for Constitutional rights...as long as they're rights that the Right wants. But when it comes to Constitutional rights that the Right doesn't like, well, let's get rid of them!

Lol !!!

Well at least I know where you get some of your nonsense from.

Why do I feel like I need to bathe after going to that useless site ?

Please refrain from posting the resources of your cancer again.
 
Below is a commentary. Lets face it, we are no longer a super power. Our military has become a hollow military force. President Obama is an incompetent commander in chief and we don't have the influence in the word that we had five years ago.

Excerpts:

>" Not since the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, and prior to that the fall of France in 1940, has there been so swift an erosion of the world influence of a Great Power as we are witnessing with the United States..."<

>" What we are witnessing now in the United States, by contrast, is just the backwash of inept policy-making in Washington, and nothing that could not eventually be put right. But for this administration to redeem its credibility now would require a change of direction and method so radical it would be the national equivalent of the comeback of Lazarus:..."<

>" The country that could pick up the slack and lead is Germany, but it is psychologically incapable. A third of its voters are communists, eco-extremists or cyber-nihilists calling themselves “pirates.” They are still in attrition-therapy over the after-effects of Nazi and communist rule. And the European power that can’t take the lead, because it is almost bankrupt, over-centralized, suffocating in pettifogging regulations and governed by idiots, is France (though it yet has the superb, often misplaced, feline confidence of a Great Power, and admittedly has been magnificent on Libya, Mali and Syria).

Canada could play a role — but first it must acquire an aircraft carrier and the other equipment necessary to project power. For starters, we should buy one of these splendid aircraft carriers the United States is retiring because of the gridlock-fed deficit and the idiocy of sequestration,..."<

The entire article. -> Collapse of American Influence Recalls Disintegration of Soviet Union, Fall of France - The New York Sun

The United States military could unstoppably destroy all human life on earth. The US military could obliterate any other nation militarily otherwise if willing to destroy unlimited numbers of civilians.

War isn't by manpower anymore. Some "police actions" are, not on "war." Not "conventional war." Not "nuclear war." Soldiers are for police actions, punitive actions, trying to sway the outcome of other groups or little countries fighting.

BUT if it ever actually came to WAR again - for what WAR mention the past, the USA could pretty much genocide any country on earth due to technological superiority. Even with what little remains of USA manufacturing ability, the USA could rapidly destroy any enemy in "WAR." However, the USA hasn't actually been in a true "war" since WWII other than possibly the FIRST Gulf War, and then H Bush decided not to continue to actually win it, degrading it to a police action when victory was at hand.
 
Below is a commentary. Lets face it, we are no longer a super power. Our military has become a hollow military force. President Obama is an incompetent commander in chief and we don't have the influence in the word that we had five years ago.

Excerpts:

>" Not since the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, and prior to that the fall of France in 1940, has there been so swift an erosion of the world influence of a Great Power as we are witnessing with the United States..."<

>" What we are witnessing now in the United States, by contrast, is just the backwash of inept policy-making in Washington, and nothing that could not eventually be put right. But for this administration to redeem its credibility now would require a change of direction and method so radical it would be the national equivalent of the comeback of Lazarus:..."<

>" The country that could pick up the slack and lead is Germany, but it is psychologically incapable. A third of its voters are communists, eco-extremists or cyber-nihilists calling themselves “pirates.” They are still in attrition-therapy over the after-effects of Nazi and communist rule. And the European power that can’t take the lead, because it is almost bankrupt, over-centralized, suffocating in pettifogging regulations and governed by idiots, is France (though it yet has the superb, often misplaced, feline confidence of a Great Power, and admittedly has been magnificent on Libya, Mali and Syria).

Canada could play a role — but first it must acquire an aircraft carrier and the other equipment necessary to project power. For starters, we should buy one of these splendid aircraft carriers the United States is retiring because of the gridlock-fed deficit and the idiocy of sequestration,..."<

The entire article. -> Collapse of American Influence Recalls Disintegration of Soviet Union, Fall of France - The New York Sun

The US is still a super power but it has come to realize that all power has limitations and the US is coming up to it's limitations. The US is still a super power because it has the ability to rally their allies to do important things but that the allies and the US are slowly becoming "tired" of saving the day because there are internal issues that just are almost impossible to solve. Country against country is relatively easy but conflicts inside countries are much harder to solve.

The US will be that super power for the foreseeable future because there are no new contenders to take over, not on economic power and certainly not on military power.

12 years of war and occupation have drained the finances and drained the willpower somewhat but the fire and the power is still there.
 
The US has the most powerful military right now and will have it for then next 20 years. China would be lucky to have about 20% of the US military power right now. It has one carrier based on a 20 or so year old Russian ship.


As for Canada, it would take our entire military budget to operate and equip one US carrier (and some of its supporting fleet)

If you aren't able to deploy that military, you can't project power. If you can't project power you aren't a superpower.

Some believe we already have a hollow military force under Obama.

We will not learn how bad things are until Obama is out of the White House.

It's like back in 1980 we knew we had a hollow military force but it wasn't until January of 1981 that we learned that it was worse than America was led to believe.

It's cheaper in the long run to spend the money maintaining a strong military than allowing it to be neglected and ending up spending three times more money to repair what was damaged.

You can neglect the best military in the world and within six months you have a military that can't fight. But it will take you over four years to rebuild it.
 
Back
Top Bottom