BreatheUT
I see that pretty girl swag.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2017
- Messages
- 30,000
- Likes
- 40,774
Calling it commentary is "citing as gospel"?
First of all is your premise "there are many rich powerful countries that are free..." - no, there aren't. You can encapsulate the entirety of the European West's military capability in a bag and it's still a combined 42-43% of U.S. spending for 2021. And they actually can see Russia from their back yard.
DefSec Austin is publicly concerned with "existential" threats, such as white supremacists in the ranks, climate change, and diversity. In the best of times with a barely industrialized and illiterate Russia and China, no NK and Iran racing to nuclear capability - even then, why would the military devolve and divert a fighting capability focus to leftist chimeras?
But that isn't the case, and in fact we have a militarily ascendant China, a Russia growing fat on European energy sales, and the worst of authoritarian countries on an inevitable path to nukes. If the UFOs are not a Pentagon project and they actually don't know what they are, their capabilities and can't stop them, why is that not an existential threat or of primary importance?
This is why Democrats cannot be entrusted with national security at our border and beyond. Had you not commented, I wouldn't have bothered watching the segment, but figured Carlson with either WAY off base or dead-on, dead-on being the winning ticket. You appear to have a reflexive aversion simply because it's Carlson.
I wasn't speaking in terms of military might. I was talking rich and powerful from the perspective of their citizens. Tucker's whole premise is that if we don't continue to spend insane sums of money on the military we will fall under chinese rule. It is a stupid f#cking premise. But again gospel to you and your ilk so carry on.
Yeah you got me. I am the guy that pays more in income taxes than most make.
And what kind of person drinks pepsi?
Don't worry, all those lawyers I saw graduating on Monday will start giving you a run for your money in ambulance chasing.
It's like the old lions, eventually you're going to slow down and they'll overtake you.
I wasn't speaking in terms of military might. I was talking rich and powerful from the perspective of their citizens. Tucker's whole premise is that if we don't continue to spend insane sums of money on the military we will fall under chinese rule. It is a stupid f#cking premise. But again gospel to you and your ilk so carry on.
Besides perspective; what is my "ilk"?
The commentary was about MILITARY power; if yours wasn't, what was the purpose? In practicality it doesn't matter what their citizens consider powerful; they simply aren't.
I'm not sure you thought this through. Australia didn't send a warship through the Taiwan strait because they can defend against China, but because we did and they're OUR ally. We do it because we can, and should. When we cannot defend or navigate waters that China or Russia wish to claim, then they will dictate to us without setting foot on U.S. soil to "rule" us.
The U.S. Indo-Pacific Command isn't warning Senate Armed Services Comm. "the military balance in the Indo-Pacific is becoming more unfavorable for the United States and our allies." because there's nothing to be alarmed about.
What is a sane amount you recommend we spend? So far, you haven't put a logical dent into anything Carlson said.
Carlson also questions the priorities of the defense department which is a legitimate concern. Austin just sounds ridiculous in his speech about the primary enemy of our military is within its own ranks. Then they spend money on a cartoon commercial for recruitment. Talk about stymieing recruitment of quality leaders.