Orange Duce

[Typical Lax Dad]

Those people represent a military threat? And our US Military does not have the ability to respond to it?, if so authorized and it is analogous to our need for nuclear submarines and strike groups to guard oceans from military threats?.... All your flowery words is nothing but BS. Fraud.

...& Trump can't even use Ft Sill to house migrant unaccompanied minors because it was a Japanese internment camp .. , even though it's used to house our soldiers & Obama used it for the same thing.

We send our troops to Central America or Haiti after natural disasters to house, care for, & detain victims in refugee camps, but we can't use them along our own border.

We have the ability to do it. We don't have the laws & funding to do it, & the (D)'s & dishonest MSM misrepresent & undermine what our military could do, if authorized & funded. They don't want to solve the crisis, they deny it, then use it to hammer Trump.

There is a Military threat that we are concerned with from the northern triangle? All you have to do is say no.

No I don't. Our military responds to humanitarian disasters all over the world.
Why are they being blocked from responding to the one on our southern border ?

Thanks. I was interested in the equivalency of defending the oceans from military threats compared to the Southern border as you made the comparison, not me.

It's ALL part of the mission of our military. What is most frustrating -- if our laws, judges & politicians allowed it, our military could mobilize & rapidly deal with the humanitarian crisis on our southern border, in a humane manner. If migrants knew they'd be taken into custody & detained by soldiers, rather than released into the US, without effective restrictions, they'd stop coming & those with legit asylum claims would make them in Mexico or Costa Rica.

Yada yada yada.

[Brooklyn]

Oh silly Sarah!

[a fan]

Trump's trying to do what you say, but he can't just drop everything & walk away.

Not asking him to walk away. What I"m asking is the not send more American hardware or troops to say, Poland. And that's precisely what he did, no?

Heck, what did the Polish President just say?

Oh, right:

"It is not one single unit. We're talking about special operation forces. We're talking about logistics components. We're also talking about the already mentioned division headquarters," Duda said. "So there is a multitude of forums in which the United States is going to be gradually ever more present in our territory from the military standpoint."

Earlier on Wednesday, speaking from the Oval Office, Trump noted that the US deployment amounts to a "statement."
"This would be a statement that the US is making," Trump said.

Ok, so at some point you're going to stop making claims of isolationism, right? I mean, do I have to break out the Princess Bride swordsman Inego Montoya with his "this word you keep using....I don't think it means what you think it does...."

[old salt]

Trump's trying to do what you say, but he can't just drop everything & walk away.

Not asking him to walk away. What I"m asking is the not send more American hardware or troops to say, Poland. And that's precisely what he did, no?

Heck, what did the Polish President just say?

Oh, right:

"It is not one single unit. We're talking about special operation forces. We're talking about logistics components. We're also talking about the already mentioned division headquarters," Duda said. "So there is a multitude of forums in which the United States is going to be gradually ever more present in our territory from the military standpoint."

Earlier on Wednesday, speaking from the Oval Office, Trump noted that the US deployment amounts to a "statement."
"This would be a statement that the US is making," Trump said.

Ok, so at some point you're going to stop making claims of isolationism, right? I mean, do I have to break out the Princess Bride swordsman Inego Montoya with his "this word you keep using....I don't think it means what you think it does...."

This is not a big deal. Poland requested that we permanently transfer an entire Armored Division & support elements (with families), vacating US bases.

This is just a shuffle of forces already in Europe. More rotations to Poland by US troops already based in Germany or elsewhere in NATO/EU. Poland's just building better bases to host our rotational forces which have been cycling through from Germany, UK & CONUS since 2014 as part of NATO's Operation Atlantic Resolve.

Obama signed us up for this. Trump's getting Poland to provide better facilities for our troops, ...& obtw, Poland signed up to buy F-35's.

Haven't you heard ? Trump's undermining NATO. ...our troops in Poland are re-enlisting at above average rates & bringing home Polish brides.

You don't want to play nice with Putin ?. Then pony up. It's costly protecting your social media.

[a fan]

Obama signed us up for this. Trump's getting Poland to provide better facilities for our troops, ...& obtw, Poland signed up to buy F-35's.

So the boys are getting higher thread count sheets or something? Neat.

And this has.....what do with isolationism?

Haven't you heard ? Trump's undermining NATO. ...our troops in Poland are re-enlisting at above average rates & bringing home Polish brides.

You don't want to play nice with Putin ?. Then pony up. It's costly protecting your social media.

We're America. That's DoD sofa cushion money. Our entire cyberwarfare/security costs us $16Billion per annum.

How much have we blown on that F-35 of yours? Over a trillion on the program, and the meter is still running, correct?


As for play nice with Putin, as usual with you, anything other than giving Putin your wife for a weekend is an overreaction.

I get it. You're mad about Russiagate. I have no earthly idea how you get from that.....to "we need to sit back an let Putin do whatever he wants, with no reaction".


Edit----- I double checked the F-35 number, as that number sounded insane. That's the total program cost through 2070, so the meter is not still running.

[old salt]

Obama signed us up for this. Trump's getting Poland to provide better facilities for our troops, ...& obtw, Poland signed up to buy F-35's.

So the boys are getting higher thread count sheets or something? Neat.
And this has.....what do with isolationism?

Haven't you heard ? Trump's undermining NATO. ...our troops in Poland are re-enlisting at above average rates & bringing home Polish brides.

You don't want to play nice with Putin ?. Then pony up. It's costly protecting your social media.

We're America. That's DoD sofa cushion money. Our entire cyberwarfare/security costs us $16Billion per annum.

How much have we blown on that F-35 of yours? Over a trillion on the program, and the meter is still running, correct?

As for play nice with Putin, as usual with you, anything other than giving Putin your wife for a weekend is an overreaction.

I get it. You're mad about Russiagate. I have no earthly idea how you get from that.....to "we need to sit back an let Putin do whatever he wants, with no reaction".

Edit----- I double checked the F-35 number, as that number sounded insane. That's the total program cost through 2070, so the meter is not still running.

Wait a second, you just said your version of isolationism did not preclude participating in NATO & sailing with allies to keep the sea lanes open.
What we're doing in Poland & the Persian Gulf is precisely what you advocate -- working with allies, not going it alone.

You had me fooled the way you're b!tch!ng & 2nd guessing our efforts in the ME to keep those sea lanes open & not disrupt the oil flow to Japan, Australia, Singapore, Taiwan, S Korea & our NATO allies.

No. What I mean is: NATO forces. Not US forces and letting everyone else stay at home.

What you have been arguing is that the UK and France and Germany and Turkey et. al. can't afford patrol boats. ONLY American ships can do it.

Our allies can afford the patrol boats for their home waters, but they don't have a support base to keep them forward deployed, like we do in Bahrain, where the Brits recently joined us. The other out of region allies can, & sometimes do, send larger warships & minesweepers.
Our Gulf allies have their own navies & we work well together. Let's see what other allies now join us, if convoys start.

[a fan]

Wait a second, you just said your version of isolationism did not preclude participating in NATO & sailing with allies to keep the sea lanes open.

That's not what I wrote.

What's happening in the Gulf the past few weeks is that non-US Forces are stepping it up. Not only is that good in my personal view, it also bolsters your isolationism theory that we're letting others do the job.

But these countries need to start installing the logistics to do this job in total before we see this as a real, long term change. The need for bases that mention is case in point.

As for Poland, that's the opposite of isolationism. US Troops doing the job because our NATO allies are unwilling to do it. Same old, same old.

[CU88]

"There's never been a time in the history of our country where somebody was so mistreated as I have been," Trump tells @GStephanopoulos

I guess, r hero, o d never heard what happened to President Kennedy or President Lincoln?

DEPLORABLE

[DMac]

As could only be said by the world's biggest narcissitic, self centered ayehole.
Think there are a few groups who would dispute his claims.

[Typical Lax Dad]

"There's never been a time in the history of our country where somebody was so mistreated as I have been," Trump tells @GStephanopoulos

I guess, r hero, o d never heard what happened to President Kennedy or President Lincoln?

DEPLORABLE

Or Reagan.....

[Typical Lax Dad]

As could only be said by the world's biggest narcissitic, self centered ayehole.
Think there are a few groups who would dispute his claims.

If you bring those groups up, Old Sailor will claim you hate this country....

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politi ... cnn.com%2F

Reminds me of Washington and Lincoln Blvds in Tehran during the Shah’s last days.....

[old salt]

Wait a second, you just said your version of isolationism did not preclude participating in NATO & sailing with allies to keep the sea lanes open.

That's not what I wrote.

What's happening in the Gulf the past few weeks is that non-US Forces are stepping it up. Not only is that good in my personal view, it also bolsters your isolationism theory that we're letting others do the job.

But these countries need to start installing the logistics to do this job in total before we see this as a real, long term change. The need for bases that mention is case in point. Not realistic nor necessary. Gulf allies bases can also be used for allies who don't need to maintain a continuous presence, who just send ships, aircraft or forces in a crisis. The links I posted about CTF 150 & CTF 152 show the continuous standing naval presence in the ME region. We use the French base at Djibouti & Brit bases on Diego Garcia, Cyprus & Gibraltar.

As for Poland, that's the opposite of isolationism. US Troops doing the job because our NATO allies are unwilling to do it. Same old, same old.
The NATO allies are willing (but not reakky able) to do it in the Baltics.
They're next door in the 3 Baltic states with the NATO multinational battalions. They're tethered goat, trip wires, in the case of a conventional invasion from Russia, but would be useful in the form of hybrid warfare that Russia used in Ukraine & Georgia. We're next door in Poland because we have sufficient heavy armor to threaten Russia's flank if they mount a conventional invasion of the Baltic states or attempt to secure a corridor to their enclave in Kaliningrad.

Our beef with our NATO allies is that their depth, modernization, training & resolve, are not sufficient to respond to a full scale Russian conventional invasion, or to join us in projecting power in other regions when our shared interests are threatened. They were able (with difficulty) to scrape together the combined multi-national battalions for the Baltics, but that consumed their best forces which would be wiped out at the onset of a conventional war. As an alliance, NATO is no longer capable of effectively defending against a conventional invasion from the E, as we were during the Cold War. That's why we need to be able to negotiate with Russia on mutually verifiable factors like conventional arms control & demilitarized buffer zones on NATO's E border, as well as strategic arms limitations.

[a fan]

Our beef with our NATO allies is that their depth, modernization, training & resolve, are not sufficient to respond to a full scale Russian conventional invasion,

Ok, but doesn't that require an absolutely insane amount of military might?

It's the Russian Army. How could Poland possibly repel Putin if he REALLY wanted to invade? Seems like an insane ask.


As for the shipping lanes------when we see other countries building the very simple infrastructure needed to keep those shipping lanes open? That's when I will agree with you that America is pulling back. You don't need aircraft carriers and nuclear subs do to that, right?

Appreciate the discussion.

[old salt]

Our beef with our NATO allies is that their depth, modernization, training & resolve, are not sufficient to respond to a full scale Russian conventional invasion,

Ok, but doesn't that require an absolutely insane amount of military might?
It would, to get back to the Cold War level of static, conventional defense. It would require the militarization of the Baltic states & NE Poland, to the extent that the W Germany's E border was fortified. It would turn the Baltics & NE Poland into an armed garrison. NATO does not have the collective will to do so. Our EU NATO allies prefer a demilitarized modus vivendi with Russia.


It's the Russian Army. How could Poland possibly repel Putin if he REALLY wanted to invade? Seems like an insane ask.
It depends on Putin's invasion route. Consult a map of Poland & the Baltic states. Unless ally Belarus joins, Russia has to go through the Baltic states to reach Poland & Kaliningrad. That's why those Zapad exercises every few years, which mass hundreds of thousands of Russian & Belarussian troops near the Belarus border, make NATO so nervous. NATO's objective is not to repel an invasion. It's to deter an invasion. Failing that -- slow it down until reinforcements arrive & to degrade the invading force.


As for the shipping lanes------when we see other countries building the very simple infrastructure needed to keep those shipping lanes open? That's when I will agree with you that America is pulling back. You don't need aircraft carriers and nuclear subs do to that, right?
There are already standing Combined Maritime Task Forces, at sea in the region, which could react immediately & be augmented.
CTF 152 W of the Strait of Hormuz. CTF 150 E of the Strait of Hormuz. CTF 151 does counter-piracy in the Gulf of Aden & off Somalia.

Appreciate the discussion.

[a fan]

There are already standing Combined Maritime Task Forces, at sea in the region, which could react immediately & be augmented.
CTF 152 W of the Strait of Hormuz. CTF 150 E of the Strait of Hormuz. CTF 151 does counter-piracy in the Gulf of Aden & off Somalia.

Appreciate the discussion.

Thanks for the great links.

How much more is needed for these forces to be enough to do what the US Navy is currently doing in terms of keeping shipping lanes open?

[old salt]

There are already standing Combined Maritime Task Forces, at sea in the region, which could react immediately & be augmented.
CTF 152 W of the Strait of Hormuz. CTF 150 E of the Strait of Hormuz. CTF 151 does counter-piracy in the Gulf of Aden & off Somalia.

Appreciate the discussion.

Thanks for the great links.

How much more is needed for these forces to be enough to do what the US Navy is currently doing in terms of keeping shipping lanes open?

I'm not sure those sort of standing Naval Task Forces would exist without the USN to pull them together.
No one else can replicate the global command & control, intel, recon, etc, which we provide.
Those links are just for the 3 CTF's in the ME. NATO also has standing Naval Forces.
If NATO just participated more & we had standing multi-nation CTF's with our Pacific allies, & they all did more, it would ease the load on the US.
The Brits & French will send a carrier battle group through the S China Sea every few years.

The F-35B's could be a big advance. They already turn our big deck amphib carriers into light attack carriers by replacing the AV-8B Harrier jump jets. They will do the same thing for the Brit, Italian & Spanish big deck amphibs which operated the Harrier, & the Japanese who are modifying their helo carrier to carry the F-35B. It's not just a strike aitcraft. It's a sensor platform which links the whole battle group together.

With a rising China, we'll probably need to keep our carrier & big deck amphib battle groups home ported in Japan.
That's not a bad thing. It keeps them in theater, at a high state of readiness with little increase in cost over basing them on our W coast.

We could scale back deployments & transits of our US based ships & units. IF -- (1) Russia's Navy was back pierside rusting again & (2) Iran wouid play nice in their sand box, so we could return to the days (pre-91) when there was no 5th Fleet & our only ship permanently in the ME was a command ship for whatever ships were depioyed to our Mid East Force, which was small pre-1979.

[OCanada]

trump teases he may begun departing millions next week.

Guess his poll numbers are worse than I thought. Neither smart nor a good economic move.

"Forget it Jake, its Chinatown"

[jhu72]

Orlando Sentinel announces their endorsement for 2020!


The Endorsement

[CU88]

All American Voters should be required to watch this video on July 4th and again before they Vote in 2020:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/all-o ... 45t5FBDo9Q