Trump going after military industrial complex for cost overruns ...

[kaz]

Bravo, the military suppliers are just used to charging more and getting paid. Damned time they are accountable for under bidding and over billing. First it was Air Force One, now it's the F35s. Time for some accountability.

Won't it be sweet if he goes after social programs with the same vigor? I sure hope he does

That would probably get him bumped off faster than anything else he may do.

Ha ha?

 

[Correll]

What you just did there was the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion. Your point is invalid.

You'll probably come around at some point. Permanent War is the MIC agenda. Peace isn't an option.

Except that you are unable to explain the long period of declining spending after the end of the Cold War.

We've been at war for at least the last 70yrs. And there's many more wars to come. Always keep in mind, peace is not an option. There's no profit in it for the MIC. The last US President to take on the MIC and try peace, died horrifically. No President since has tried it. It's a very sad vicious circle of war. There's no end in sight.

Nothing in your post addressed my point.

My point which cited history to completely disprove your position.

If you are truly unaware of the collapse of military spending after the Cold War, then you are spouting off about a subject of which you are simply uninformed.


I recall discussions with a buddy of mine at the time. We both knew that with the end of the COld War that spending was on procurement and development would drop like a rock, that what we had at that time was going to be what we had for a generation.


He was upset over the wastefulness of it, of procurement programs that would be cancelled just as they started actual production, (thus resulting in HUGE per unit costs), for example.

I told him it was useless to even discuss. There would be no planned and reasonable wind down. No one in a position to do anything about it, was caring. They were already focusing on other priorities.

Only brief respites. Take a close look at US military spending compared to the rest of the world. No other nation even close. So, more wars? You betcha. Peace is not an option.

1. Nope. The Post Cold War spending drop went on for quite a while and would have stayed down if not for 9-11. The drop started during GHWBush's administration and continued all though Clinton's two terms and would have kept going for who knows how long.

2. Compared to the rest of the world? What do you image that shows? The Europe doesn't carry it's weight? THat our dominance discourages spending by rationals enemies? THat our dominance discourages adventurism and thus the need for defense from conquest?

3. YOu've done NOTHING to support your already debunked theory.

 

[Dschrute3]

You'll probably come around at some point. Permanent War is the MIC agenda. Peace isn't an option.

Except that you are unable to explain the long period of declining spending after the end of the Cold War.

We've been at war for at least the last 70yrs. And there's many more wars to come. Always keep in mind, peace is not an option. There's no profit in it for the MIC. The last US President to take on the MIC and try peace, died horrifically. No President since has tried it. It's a very sad vicious circle of war. There's no end in sight.

Nothing in your post addressed my point.

My point which cited history to completely disprove your position.

If you are truly unaware of the collapse of military spending after the Cold War, then you are spouting off about a subject of which you are simply uninformed.


I recall discussions with a buddy of mine at the time. We both knew that with the end of the COld War that spending was on procurement and development would drop like a rock, that what we had at that time was going to be what we had for a generation.


He was upset over the wastefulness of it, of procurement programs that would be cancelled just as they started actual production, (thus resulting in HUGE per unit costs), for example.

I told him it was useless to even discuss. There would be no planned and reasonable wind down. No one in a position to do anything about it, was caring. They were already focusing on other priorities.

Only brief respites. Take a close look at US military spending compared to the rest of the world. No other nation even close. So, more wars? You betcha. Peace is not an option.

1. Nope. The Post Cold War spending drop went on for quite a while and would have stayed down if not for 9-11. The drop started during GHWBush's administration and continued all though Clinton's two terms and would have kept going for who knows how long.

2. Compared to the rest of the world? What do you image that shows? The Europe doesn't carry it's weight? THat our dominance discourages spending by rationals enemies? THat our dominance discourages adventurism and thus the need for defense from conquest?

3. YOu've done NOTHING to support your already debunked theory.

Well, i can see this discussion is pointless. Just remember what i said. Permanent War is the goal. Peace is not an option for the MIC.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bravo, the military suppliers are just used to charging more and getting paid. Damned time they are accountable for under bidding and over billing. First it was Air Force One, now it's the F35s. Time for some accountability.

Won't it be sweet if he goes after social programs with the same vigor? I sure hope he does

No he's not. What Trump says and what Trump does has a Grand Canyon wide chasm between the two.

 

[Dschrute3]

Bravo, the military suppliers are just used to charging more and getting paid. Damned time they are accountable for under bidding and over billing. First it was Air Force One, now it's the F35s. Time for some accountability.

Won't it be sweet if he goes after social programs with the same vigor? I sure hope he does

No he's not. What Trump says and what Trump does has a Grand Canyon wide chasm between the two.

Wait, what? He hasn't even been sworn in yet. Yet you're already condemning him. Seems hateful and irrational.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bravo, the military suppliers are just used to charging more and getting paid. Damned time they are accountable for under bidding and over billing. First it was Air Force One, now it's the F35s. Time for some accountability.

Won't it be sweet if he goes after social programs with the same vigor? I sure hope he does

No he's not. What Trump says and what Trump does has a Grand Canyon wide chasm between the two.

Wait, what? He hasn't even been sworn in yet. Yet you're already condemning him. Seems hateful and irrational.

Since you RWnuts are giving Trump credit for every bit of positive news since the election,

WTF are you talking about?

 

[Correll]

Except that you are unable to explain the long period of declining spending after the end of the Cold War.

We've been at war for at least the last 70yrs. And there's many more wars to come. Always keep in mind, peace is not an option. There's no profit in it for the MIC. The last US President to take on the MIC and try peace, died horrifically. No President since has tried it. It's a very sad vicious circle of war. There's no end in sight.

Nothing in your post addressed my point.

My point which cited history to completely disprove your position.

If you are truly unaware of the collapse of military spending after the Cold War, then you are spouting off about a subject of which you are simply uninformed.


I recall discussions with a buddy of mine at the time. We both knew that with the end of the COld War that spending was on procurement and development would drop like a rock, that what we had at that time was going to be what we had for a generation.


He was upset over the wastefulness of it, of procurement programs that would be cancelled just as they started actual production, (thus resulting in HUGE per unit costs), for example.

I told him it was useless to even discuss. There would be no planned and reasonable wind down. No one in a position to do anything about it, was caring. They were already focusing on other priorities.

Only brief respites. Take a close look at US military spending compared to the rest of the world. No other nation even close. So, more wars? You betcha. Peace is not an option.

1. Nope. The Post Cold War spending drop went on for quite a while and would have stayed down if not for 9-11. The drop started during GHWBush's administration and continued all though Clinton's two terms and would have kept going for who knows how long.

2. Compared to the rest of the world? What do you image that shows? The Europe doesn't carry it's weight? THat our dominance discourages spending by rationals enemies? THat our dominance discourages adventurism and thus the need for defense from conquest?

3. YOu've done NOTHING to support your already debunked theory.

Well, i can see this discussion is pointless. Just remember what i said. Permanent War is the goal. Peace is not an option for the MIC.

What you just did was not a discussion. YOu never responded seriously to anything I said, you just keep repeating your claims over and over again.


At best what you did was propaganda.

 

[Dschrute3]

We've been at war for at least the last 70yrs. And there's many more wars to come. Always keep in mind, peace is not an option. There's no profit in it for the MIC. The last US President to take on the MIC and try peace, died horrifically. No President since has tried it. It's a very sad vicious circle of war. There's no end in sight.

Nothing in your post addressed my point.

My point which cited history to completely disprove your position.

If you are truly unaware of the collapse of military spending after the Cold War, then you are spouting off about a subject of which you are simply uninformed.


I recall discussions with a buddy of mine at the time. We both knew that with the end of the COld War that spending was on procurement and development would drop like a rock, that what we had at that time was going to be what we had for a generation.


He was upset over the wastefulness of it, of procurement programs that would be cancelled just as they started actual production, (thus resulting in HUGE per unit costs), for example.

I told him it was useless to even discuss. There would be no planned and reasonable wind down. No one in a position to do anything about it, was caring. They were already focusing on other priorities.

Only brief respites. Take a close look at US military spending compared to the rest of the world. No other nation even close. So, more wars? You betcha. Peace is not an option.

1. Nope. The Post Cold War spending drop went on for quite a while and would have stayed down if not for 9-11. The drop started during GHWBush's administration and continued all though Clinton's two terms and would have kept going for who knows how long.

2. Compared to the rest of the world? What do you image that shows? The Europe doesn't carry it's weight? THat our dominance discourages spending by rationals enemies? THat our dominance discourages adventurism and thus the need for defense from conquest?

3. YOu've done NOTHING to support your already debunked theory.

Well, i can see this discussion is pointless. Just remember what i said. Permanent War is the goal. Peace is not an option for the MIC.

What you just did was not a discussion. YOu never responded seriously to anything I said, you just keep repeating your claims over and over again.


At best what you did was propaganda.

No money in peace. Why would the MIC want it? The wars will go on & on. Bet on that.

 

[Correll]

Nothing in your post addressed my point.

My point which cited history to completely disprove your position.

If you are truly unaware of the collapse of military spending after the Cold War, then you are spouting off about a subject of which you are simply uninformed.


I recall discussions with a buddy of mine at the time. We both knew that with the end of the COld War that spending was on procurement and development would drop like a rock, that what we had at that time was going to be what we had for a generation.


He was upset over the wastefulness of it, of procurement programs that would be cancelled just as they started actual production, (thus resulting in HUGE per unit costs), for example.

I told him it was useless to even discuss. There would be no planned and reasonable wind down. No one in a position to do anything about it, was caring. They were already focusing on other priorities.

Only brief respites. Take a close look at US military spending compared to the rest of the world. No other nation even close. So, more wars? You betcha. Peace is not an option.

1. Nope. The Post Cold War spending drop went on for quite a while and would have stayed down if not for 9-11. The drop started during GHWBush's administration and continued all though Clinton's two terms and would have kept going for who knows how long.

2. Compared to the rest of the world? What do you image that shows? The Europe doesn't carry it's weight? THat our dominance discourages spending by rationals enemies? THat our dominance discourages adventurism and thus the need for defense from conquest?

3. YOu've done NOTHING to support your already debunked theory.

Well, i can see this discussion is pointless. Just remember what i said. Permanent War is the goal. Peace is not an option for the MIC.

What you just did was not a discussion. YOu never responded seriously to anything I said, you just keep repeating your claims over and over again.


At best what you did was propaganda.

No money in peace. Why would the MIC want it? The wars will go on & on. Bet on that.

Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion. YOur post is invalid.

 

[Dschrute3]

Only brief respites. Take a close look at US military spending compared to the rest of the world. No other nation even close. So, more wars? You betcha. Peace is not an option.

1. Nope. The Post Cold War spending drop went on for quite a while and would have stayed down if not for 9-11. The drop started during GHWBush's administration and continued all though Clinton's two terms and would have kept going for who knows how long.

2. Compared to the rest of the world? What do you image that shows? The Europe doesn't carry it's weight? THat our dominance discourages spending by rationals enemies? THat our dominance discourages adventurism and thus the need for defense from conquest?

3. YOu've done NOTHING to support your already debunked theory.

Well, i can see this discussion is pointless. Just remember what i said. Permanent War is the goal. Peace is not an option for the MIC.

What you just did was not a discussion. YOu never responded seriously to anything I said, you just keep repeating your claims over and over again.


At best what you did was propaganda.

No money in peace. Why would the MIC want it? The wars will go on & on. Bet on that.

Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion. YOur post is invalid.

Not merely an 'assertion.' It's fact. The MIC will continue to drag us into more wars. Just a fact.

 

[Correll]

1. Nope. The Post Cold War spending drop went on for quite a while and would have stayed down if not for 9-11. The drop started during GHWBush's administration and continued all though Clinton's two terms and would have kept going for who knows how long.

2. Compared to the rest of the world? What do you image that shows? The Europe doesn't carry it's weight? THat our dominance discourages spending by rationals enemies? THat our dominance discourages adventurism and thus the need for defense from conquest?

3. YOu've done NOTHING to support your already debunked theory.

Well, i can see this discussion is pointless. Just remember what i said. Permanent War is the goal. Peace is not an option for the MIC.

What you just did was not a discussion. YOu never responded seriously to anything I said, you just keep repeating your claims over and over again.


At best what you did was propaganda.

No money in peace. Why would the MIC want it? The wars will go on & on. Bet on that.

Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion. YOur post is invalid.

Not merely an 'assertion.' It's fact. The MIC will continue to drag us into more wars. Just fact.

Claiming that your unsupported opinion is fact, does not make it so.

Stating your claim more and more strongly and confidently, is not supporting it.


I pointed out an historical contradiction to your claim. YOu have done nothing to counter that.

 

[Dschrute3]

Well, i can see this discussion is pointless. Just remember what i said. Permanent War is the goal. Peace is not an option for the MIC.

What you just did was not a discussion. YOu never responded seriously to anything I said, you just keep repeating your claims over and over again.


At best what you did was propaganda.

No money in peace. Why would the MIC want it? The wars will go on & on. Bet on that.

Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion. YOur post is invalid.

Not merely an 'assertion.' It's fact. The MIC will continue to drag us into more wars. Just fact.

Claiming that your unsupported opinion is fact, does not make it so.

Stating your claim more and more strongly and confidently, is not supporting it.


I pointed out an historical contradiction to your claim. YOu have done nothing to counter that.

Let me know when we stop bombing and killing all around the world. Good luck with that.

 

[Correll]

What you just did was not a discussion. YOu never responded seriously to anything I said, you just keep repeating your claims over and over again.


At best what you did was propaganda.

No money in peace. Why would the MIC want it? The wars will go on & on. Bet on that.

Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion. YOur post is invalid.

Not merely an 'assertion.' It's fact. The MIC will continue to drag us into more wars. Just fact.

Claiming that your unsupported opinion is fact, does not make it so.

Stating your claim more and more strongly and confidently, is not supporting it.


I pointed out an historical contradiction to your claim. YOu have done nothing to counter that.

Let me know when we stop bombing and killing all around the world. Good luck with that.

Let me know when you actually look at the Post Cold War period when military spending dropped like a rock and stayed down, thus disproving the old lefty theory that our military spending is not driven by real national security considerations.


Were you aware that your theory was used to argue that the Cold War was our fault?