Trump chooses mattis for secdef!!!

Speaking for yourself of course, I volunteered during Vietnam.

 

Isis is waiting for you

 

I believe you.

The same thing goes for my own airplane - a Piper Malibu.

The alternator is the same as a car alternator. The law says I have to buy the certified version, which costs a whole lot more.

The difference is that the certified version has been individually tested and certified under conditions deemed necessary, while the one in your car comes off a line and into your car.

Was that testing necessary? I don't know, but my bet is that it came from some history of failure. And, if I lose my alternator at night in instrument conditions, I have a decidedly short time and high work load to cut electrical power to unneeded features and find some place to get on the ground, as the battery won't last that long.

Were there reasons someone cared whether that diode was working? I don't need to know, but that would probably be the question.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't believe you had the facts about the Boeing case when you wrote this post.

 

You too only they are not content to just wait there.

 

Same diode, same packaging. The requisitioned diodes worked no better than the ones from radio shack.

- - - Updated - - -

Same diode, same packaging. The requisitioned diodes worked no better than the ones from radio shack.

 

Not only are there just estimates and trying to compare cost adds more the inability to accurately assess strength or make the comparisons to size based on spending.

But what are you getting at, there should be economic parity in defense spending with our enemies?

 

How should we judge that we are spending too much on defense? Maybe we need 100 carrier groups? 10000?

 

Well we start with giving great deference to those we educate at our academies in such matters then we go with Pentagon planners who run such war games to determine what would be need in a worst case scenario. Then Congress will hold hearings and call in various defence and military think-tanks and study groups and hopefully we have elected smart , intelligent, rational legislators who then decide with a Trump president holding their feet to the fire.

Do you have another system to propose?

But again I have heard the leftist arguements before as in we should limit our defense spending to not more that the top 2 other countries or the top 3 or other various proposals.

The defense of our shores, our national security is the TOP priority of the national government. The purpose of a strong defense is NOT to go out and seek war so generals can have fun engaging our troops in it. It is to PREVENT and attack on us and a reason to engage in war. The weaker we are the more likely we will be engaged in a war.

What amazes me here is here is a President elect who has just told a MAJOR defense contractor " Hold on a minute here, we're going to review this contract to see if you are attempting to screw us" and they are up in arms instead of giving him a high five.

I dind't vote for him, I don't like his as a person, I didn't support him even starting threads critical of him...........but I like the way he is coming out of the blocks.

 

Cut the military. We will be safer and save tons of money

 

So you support this action by Trump?

 

Trump does not have the authority to cut one penny

 

He can stop it and call for this review and submit a spending recision to a complimentary congress.

Now care to address what I posted or not?

Well we start with giving great deference to those we educate at our academies in such matters then we go with Pentagon planners who run such war games to determine what would be need in a worst case scenario. Then Congress will hold hearings and call in various defence and military think-tanks and study groups and hopefully we have elected smart , intelligent, rational legislators who then decide with a Trump president holding their feet to the fire.

Do you have another system to propose?

But again I have heard the leftist arguements before as in we should limit our defense spending to not more that the top 2 other countries or the top 3 or other various proposals.

The defense of our shores, our national security is the TOP priority of the national government. The purpose of a strong defense is NOT to go out and seek war so generals can have fun engaging our troops in it. It is to PREVENT and attack on us and a reason to engage in war. The weaker we are the more likely we will be engaged in a war.

What amazes me here is here is a President elect who has just told a MAJOR defense contractor " Hold on a minute here, we're going to review this contract to see if you are attempting to screw us" and they are up in arms instead of giving him a high five.

I dind't vote for him, I don't like his as a person, I didn't support him even starting threads critical of him...........but I like the way he is coming out of the blocks.

 

How about we let HHS experts decide how much welfare we need? They are the experts

 

Trump is saying let's not use the knee jerk DoD "experts", does that escape you? I certainly hope he does the same with HHS.

 

Wait.....you just said we should use the DOD experts.....so which is it?

 

well he needed a waiver to be sec of def
https://www.google.com/amp/s/bc.mar...s-defense-secretary?client=ms-android-verizon

personally i am against making exceptions because it sets a bad precedence. these statutes are there to help prevent corruption regardless of party. in addition, i have no doubt that other general officers that have waited and are qualified have been looked over

 

Actually, I think she's going to the Inaugural Bawl.

 

And a host of others did that escape you?

Your turn how do you propose we set troop levels and equipment levels? The only thong I have read is about how much other countries spend and some kind of an equity.

 

Then post the facts you believe I am missing.

 

We cut carrier groups in half and close 50% of bases around the world. Bring the troops home and stick our carriers off our shores. No one could touch us.

 

And you derive these levels how exactly?

 

Half of our carriers would put us at 5. Two west and two east and one reserve. Hell we could close almost all our bases around the world. How many bases does china and russia have all over the world?

 

OK you can do basic math. Now how did you derive those numbers as adequate force?

 

From my own personal opinion....I am certainly not going to listen to a bunch of generals whose would be out of a job if we cut the military

 

ROFL theyvwouldnt be losing their jobs, that the best you got? Do you even know the operational range of a carrier battle group?