The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Archives => Politics => Election 2012 => Topic started by: NHSparky on June 07, 2011, 07:42:41 AM
-
...and ya'll can help me out. St. Anselm's is hosting a GOP debate on Monday, June 13th at 8 PM, to be broadcast on CNN and I would presume some other outlets.
I was called by CNN last weekend and asked if I'd like to attend one of several "town hall" gatherings around the state (the one I'm going to is at the Rochester Opera House.)
One of the things the lady asked is for me to come up with potential questions of the candidates, and it might get asked of them.
So, what do you think? Anyone want to jump in and provide some (serious) suggestions for questions?
-
Yeah--I'll take a shot.
Which Cabinet-level department, or departments, are you willing to cut back or out of the Federal budget, and why?
-
What should tax funds be used to pay for?
-
Why are we building another carrier? 12 groups aren't enough? Is zombie Tojo going to come back and attack our navy? Why not spend that money on infantry and UAVs (which are, in the current conflicts, actually useful)? Or, hell, on reducing the deficit?
Also, the best we could do on spending reductions was 1%? WTF?
-
What is your plan in addressing illegal immigration?
How do you intend to safeguard our borders? And how much is all this going to cost?
-
Why are we building another carrier? 12 groups aren't enough? Is zombie Tojo going to come back and attack our navy? Why not spend that money on infantry and UAVs (which are, in the current conflicts, actually useful)? Or, hell, on reducing the deficit?
Also, the best we could do on spending reductions was 1%? WTF?
Actually, I can answer that one.
Read Alfred Thayer Mahan. Still relevant today.
-
Actually, I can answer that one.
Read Alfred Thayer Mahan. Still relevant today.
He's still one of the best seapower strategists, even though he's been dead for almost a hundred years.
However, I didn't advocate mothballing any carriers currently in use, and there's nobody on the planet that can challenge even one of our carrier groups...And 12 groups is pretty good for world-wide coverage.
Eventually the cost/benefit analysis comes out in favor of holding down costs, know what I mean?
-
Not for lack of effort on the part of the Chinese, and don't think for a second Putin wouldn't go back to the old Soviet system given the chance.
Face it--Iran ain't a threat in the Med or even the Red Sea, but the fact they can get there means we have to be able to deter them there as well, and the only way you're going to do that is force projection. NOBODY projects power as well as we do. NOBODY.
-
Not for lack of effort on the part of the Chinese, and don't think for a second Putin wouldn't go back to the old Soviet system given the chance.
Face it--Iran ain't a threat in the Med or even the Red Sea, but the fact they can get there means we have to be able to deter them there as well, and the only way you're going to do that is force projection. NOBODY projects power as well as we do. NOBODY.
I agree 100%. That's why I'm saying we don't need another carrier. The benefits simply don't outweigh the cost of a 13th carrier.
I'm not saying don't spend money on the military. I'm just saying that in this economy, we need to spend it as wisely as possible.
-
I agree 100%. That's why I'm saying we don't need another carrier. The benefits simply don't outweigh the cost of a 13th carrier.
I'm not saying don't spend money on the military. I'm just saying that in this economy, we need to spend it as wisely as possible.
Wait a minute.
Didn't I read just a few weeks ago that the Enterprise is headed for decomming?
Yep, the Wiki article says she's going away in 2013. So unless my math is kinda ****ed, there won't be a 13th carrier group after all.
-
Wait a minute.
Didn't I read just a few weeks ago that the Enterprise is headed for decomming?
Yep, the Wiki article says she's going away in 2013. So unless my math is kinda ****ed, there won't be a 13th carrier group after all.
That's new on me, and makes this whole thing make more sense. Question answered.
Still, I think that money would be better spent on land forces and UAVs...If we're going to continue screwing around in shitholes, that is. If we're not, then the carrier makes more sense.