also: even pre WWII we had some damn good equipment. the japs lost midway because our aircraft carriers could get hit time and time again with very little damage. Whereas the Jap carriers lit up like a tinderbox after just one hit.

the japs thought Yorktown wouldn't even be available for midway. attacked it, thought they sunk it. attacked it again thought they sunk it (didn't realize it was the same carrier) and it finally took a sub after the battle to finish it off. it took a single wave that was completely uncoordinated to wipe out three jap carriers all at once because their ships did not have all the fire control mechanisms/new technology that our carriers had.

(05-23-2016 03:14 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 03:07 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:54 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:44 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:31 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  Sure we did. How did that work out at the beginning of World War 2? We lost a lot of people by having outdated equipment and spent an untold fortune bringing ourselves up to par and then surpassing our enemies at the time. Perceived weakness invites attack.

If we had a bigger navy, more of it would have been sunk at Pearl Harbor, and most of it would likely have been battleships, not the aircraft carriers it turned out we needed. We would have spent an untold fortune anyway - everyone did in that war. Difference is, we had more money to do it because we didn't spend money on stuff for the previous 20 years that would have been obsolete anyway. Even so, it took us less than 4 years to finish off the Japs despite the large distances, even while fighting in Europe and pushing the Germans back. And we were only there for a year.

So if we would have had a bigger Navy it would have all been stationed at Pearl Harbor. You think maybe some might have went to Subic Bay to reinforce the Philippines? Maybe we could have had more aircraft carriers to where more patrolling would have been possible so that we didn't get surprised at Pearl.
If you check you will also find we didn't have the money. That's why the war bond drives were so critical. And we were in Europe a lot longer that one year unless you figure Italy, one of the bloodiest theatres of the war, isn't in Europe. You also fail to address the number of lives lost due to starting out the war with inferior equipment. Also as Bull pointed out, we aren't equipped now to convert over to war production as we were then.

We would have had equipment built in the 20s and early 30s. It would have all been obsolete. If we didn't have the money, then how on Earth would we have been able to afford keeping up a military? How exactly can we afford it now? We can't. We simply borrow money for it.

The ocean is a big place. Would have been very expensive to try to patrol any percentage of the routes the Japs could have taken to any number of potential targets. You're going to build 15 carriers for an attack that might never happen?

Yea I misspoke, have to include the time in Italy as well. Still only a few years. Even the Germans lost a lot of lives due to inferior equipment also, like when they went up against T-34s. Up-to-date equipment changes a lot when there's a war going on. Something that was up to date in 1937 isn't up to date in 1942. If you try to chase that every year when there isn't even a war on you'll go broke.

Then there are all the years before WWI we would have been spending money on a big military.

You upgrade based on the capabilities of your potential adversary just as we did during the Cold War. We haven't had a major global conflict since World War 2 yet we are not using the same version of F15 as we did when if first came out. Had we allowed ourselves to get to the level we were immediately prior to World War 2 it is a good bet the Soviets would have taken advantage.
That's the need for military spending and why you keep your forces up to date and prepared for the conflicts they are likely to face.

I understand you have to have some military forces, but we're spending way more than Russia plus most of the other large militaries of the world combined. And yet many Republicans seem to think that we need to spend more than we are now. Plus, if you have that big of a military, the tendency is to put it to use, which costs even more.

Compared to all that, $500 million for Zika isn't even that much, sadly.

this conversation is idiotic. we won WWII because our industry was able to create new technology that could change the tide of the war while the war was ongoing. those days are long gone. whatever tech you have on day #1, is the only tech that will make the difference because everything depends on the first strike now. now granted none of that matters if you are a nuclear power because no one would be dumb enough to try that on you.

(05-23-2016 03:20 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 03:14 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 03:07 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:54 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:44 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If we had a bigger navy, more of it would have been sunk at Pearl Harbor, and most of it would likely have been battleships, not the aircraft carriers it turned out we needed. We would have spent an untold fortune anyway - everyone did in that war. Difference is, we had more money to do it because we didn't spend money on stuff for the previous 20 years that would have been obsolete anyway. Even so, it took us less than 4 years to finish off the Japs despite the large distances, even while fighting in Europe and pushing the Germans back. And we were only there for a year.

So if we would have had a bigger Navy it would have all been stationed at Pearl Harbor. You think maybe some might have went to Subic Bay to reinforce the Philippines? Maybe we could have had more aircraft carriers to where more patrolling would have been possible so that we didn't get surprised at Pearl.
If you check you will also find we didn't have the money. That's why the war bond drives were so critical. And we were in Europe a lot longer that one year unless you figure Italy, one of the bloodiest theatres of the war, isn't in Europe. You also fail to address the number of lives lost due to starting out the war with inferior equipment. Also as Bull pointed out, we aren't equipped now to convert over to war production as we were then.

We would have had equipment built in the 20s and early 30s. It would have all been obsolete. If we didn't have the money, then how on Earth would we have been able to afford keeping up a military? How exactly can we afford it now? We can't. We simply borrow money for it.

The ocean is a big place. Would have been very expensive to try to patrol any percentage of the routes the Japs could have taken to any number of potential targets. You're going to build 15 carriers for an attack that might never happen?

Yea I misspoke, have to include the time in Italy as well. Still only a few years. Even the Germans lost a lot of lives due to inferior equipment also, like when they went up against T-34s. Up-to-date equipment changes a lot when there's a war going on. Something that was up to date in 1937 isn't up to date in 1942. If you try to chase that every year when there isn't even a war on you'll go broke.

Then there are all the years before WWI we would have been spending money on a big military.

You upgrade based on the capabilities of your potential adversary just as we did during the Cold War. We haven't had a major global conflict since World War 2 yet we are not using the same version of F15 as we did when if first came out. Had we allowed ourselves to get to the level we were immediately prior to World War 2 it is a good bet the Soviets would have taken advantage.
That's the need for military spending and why you keep your forces up to date and prepared for the conflicts they are likely to face.

I understand you have to have some military forces, but we're spending way more than Russia plus most of the other large militaries of the world combined. And yet many Republicans seem to think that we need to spend more than we are now. Plus, if you have that big of a military, the tendency is to put it to use, which costs even more.

Compared to all that, $500 million for Zika isn't even that much, sadly.

$1 to the CDC will do far more to save American lives than $1 for the DOD. It's too bad Republicans are too dumb to realize that.

(05-23-2016 03:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  It was the "dagger pointed at our throat" with our large military presence that provoked Japan. the idea that they attacked because they thought we were weak is a ludicrous assumption understood only by those with no historical knowledge. also there is this thing called the washington naval treaty that was designed to prevent a naval arms race by putting limits on the amount of ships a nation could have. so we simply couldn't just build up our navy.

Most point to the oil embargo we put on Japan as the catalyst for their attack. Yamamoto knew what we would be capable of given time but had hoped with the victory at Pearl and the Philippines they could bring us to heel quickly. The Japanese had the short term advantage. He also realized how egregious the error was in delivering the message which basically declared war on the USA after the Pearl Harbor attack. To say we were ready to enter World War 2 would also be a ludicrous assumption.

(05-23-2016 03:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  this conversation is idiotic. we won WWII because our industry was able to create new technology that could change the tide of the war while the war was ongoing. those days are long gone. whatever tech you have on day #1, is the only tech that will make the difference because everything depends on the first strike now. now granted none of that matters if you are a nuclear power because no one would be dumb enough to try that on you.

On this we agree however we still must be prepared to deal with the conflicts we are likely to face and that requires defense spending. I would be all for reducing the over spending and realize there is an abundance of it just as I would be for doing it across the board on government spending.

(05-23-2016 10:47 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Obama raided $500M for Zika to finance UN project

Uh oh.

(05-23-2016 03:24 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 03:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  It was the "dagger pointed at our throat" with our large military presence that provoked Japan. the idea that they attacked because they thought we were weak is a ludicrous assumption understood only by those with no historical knowledge. also there is this thing called the washington naval treaty that was designed to prevent a naval arms race by putting limits on the amount of ships a nation could have. so we simply couldn't just build up our navy.

Most point to the oil embargo we put on Japan as the catalyst for their attack. Yamamoto knew what we would be capable of given time but had hoped with the victory at Pearl and the Philippines they could bring us to heel quickly. The Japanese had the short term advantage. He also realized how egregious the error was in delivering the message which basically declared war on the USA after the Pearl Harbor attack. To say we were ready to enter World War 2 would also be a ludicrous assumption.

I'm talking after the fact:

PH happened because the conventional jap thinking was that the war in the pacific would be fought like this:

as soon as the war started the superior US fleet would sail from PH and charge across the pacific and defeat the Jap Navy in a large scale battle. trying to neutralize that treat was why they attacked us at PH.

the jap military wanted war and they were willing to go to war with the US even though it was suicide. they attacked first because they saw PH as a threat.

(05-23-2016 01:18 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  There's a lot of money that could have been used for Zika funding. For example, all that money spent on the Iraq war. Or more particularly, one-half of one B-2 bomber.

So zerO not prioritizing already budgeted funds to combat a pretty nasty infectious disease that will be affecting women in the United States (if it isn't already from the border jumpers) is Bush's fault.

Got it.

There's lots of areas that this money could come from, or that would be better spent here than on whatever boondoggle it's currently going to. So what? The point is this is already appropriated and is presumably just sitting there, not doing any good for anyone.

Bloated gubment at it's best.

(05-23-2016 03:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  this conversation is idiotic. we won WWII because our industry was able to create new technology that could change the tide of the war while the war was ongoing. those days are long gone. whatever tech you have on day #1, is the only tech that will make the difference because everything depends on the first strike now. now granted none of that matters if you are a nuclear power because no one would be dumb enough to try that on you.

Depends on the kind of war you're fighting. In every war though you have to find out what works and what doesn't, and you have to adjust. There are always going to be advances in any war that lasts.

(05-23-2016 03:27 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 03:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  this conversation is idiotic. we won WWII because our industry was able to create new technology that could change the tide of the war while the war was ongoing. those days are long gone. whatever tech you have on day #1, is the only tech that will make the difference because everything depends on the first strike now. now granted none of that matters if you are a nuclear power because no one would be dumb enough to try that on you.

On this we agree however we still must be prepared to deal with the conflicts we are likely to face and that requires defense spending. I would be all for reducing the over spending and realize there is an abundance of it just as I would be for doing it across the board on government spending.

I don't think anyone is arguing we don't need a military, or that it shouldn't be a good-sized military. So I think we agree on this.

(05-23-2016 03:19 PM)john01992 Wrote:  also: even pre WWII we had some damn good equipment. the japs lost midway because our aircraft carriers could get hit time and time again with very little damage. Whereas the Jap carriers lit up like a tinderbox after just one hit.

the japs thought Yorktown wouldn't even be available for midway. attacked it, thought they sunk it. attacked it again thought they sunk it (didn't realize it was the same carrier) and it finally took a sub after the battle to finish it off. it took a single wave that was completely uncoordinated to wipe out three jap carriers all at once because their ships did not have all the fire control mechanisms/new technology that our carriers had.

It also helped that the Japanese carriers had planes refueling and rearming on their decks and that their fighter covers had been pulled down to defend against the torpedo planes. Check the losses on the torpedo planes and how many torpedo's found their target. It will give you an idea of what I am talking about with regard to inferior planes. You will also find there were still ship yard workers on board completing repairs when she sailed for Midway.

(05-23-2016 03:34 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 03:19 PM)john01992 Wrote:  also: even pre WWII we had some damn good equipment. the japs lost midway because our aircraft carriers could get hit time and time again with very little damage. Whereas the Jap carriers lit up like a tinderbox after just one hit.

the japs thought Yorktown wouldn't even be available for midway. attacked it, thought they sunk it. attacked it again thought they sunk it (didn't realize it was the same carrier) and it finally took a sub after the battle to finish it off. it took a single wave that was completely uncoordinated to wipe out three jap carriers all at once because their ships did not have all the fire control mechanisms/new technology that our carriers had.

It also helped that the Japanese carriers had planes refueling and rearming on their decks and that their fighter covers had been pulled down to defend against the torpedo planes. Check the losses on the torpedo planes and how many torpedo's found their target. It will give you an idea of what I am talking about with regard to inferior planes. You will also find there were still ship yard workers on board completing repairs when she sailed for Midway.

That one book, Shattered Sword, talked about their decks actually being clear when the carriers were hit, according to a couple pictures taken at the time. I don't remember the details. Boy, we're getting off topic though.

(05-23-2016 03:42 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 03:34 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 03:19 PM)john01992 Wrote:  also: even pre WWII we had some damn good equipment. the japs lost midway because our aircraft carriers could get hit time and time again with very little damage. Whereas the Jap carriers lit up like a tinderbox after just one hit.

the japs thought Yorktown wouldn't even be available for midway. attacked it, thought they sunk it. attacked it again thought they sunk it (didn't realize it was the same carrier) and it finally took a sub after the battle to finish it off. it took a single wave that was completely uncoordinated to wipe out three jap carriers all at once because their ships did not have all the fire control mechanisms/new technology that our carriers had.

It also helped that the Japanese carriers had planes refueling and rearming on their decks and that their fighter covers had been pulled down to defend against the torpedo planes. Check the losses on the torpedo planes and how many torpedo's found their target. It will give you an idea of what I am talking about with regard to inferior planes. You will also find there were still ship yard workers on board completing repairs when she sailed for Midway.

That one book, Shattered Sword, talked about their decks actually being clear when the carriers were hit, according to a couple pictures taken at the time. I don't remember the details. Boy, we're getting off topic though.

That's one I haven't read but I agree that we are off topic.

(05-23-2016 03:45 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 03:42 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 03:34 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 03:19 PM)john01992 Wrote:  also: even pre WWII we had some damn good equipment. the japs lost midway because our aircraft carriers could get hit time and time again with very little damage. Whereas the Jap carriers lit up like a tinderbox after just one hit.

the japs thought Yorktown wouldn't even be available for midway. attacked it, thought they sunk it. attacked it again thought they sunk it (didn't realize it was the same carrier) and it finally took a sub after the battle to finish it off. it took a single wave that was completely uncoordinated to wipe out three jap carriers all at once because their ships did not have all the fire control mechanisms/new technology that our carriers had.

It also helped that the Japanese carriers had planes refueling and rearming on their decks and that their fighter covers had been pulled down to defend against the torpedo planes. Check the losses on the torpedo planes and how many torpedo's found their target. It will give you an idea of what I am talking about with regard to inferior planes. You will also find there were still ship yard workers on board completing repairs when she sailed for Midway.

That one book, Shattered Sword, talked about their decks actually being clear when the carriers were hit, according to a couple pictures taken at the time. I don't remember the details. Boy, we're getting off topic though.

That's one I haven't read but I agree that we are off topic.

It's a rather good book I'd say, talks more about the Japanese side of things than U.S.

(05-23-2016 03:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  $1 to the CDC will do far more to save American lives than $1 for the DOD. It's too bad Republicans are too dumb to realize that.

odd that you'd say this, since this is precisely the point that the REPUBLICAN senator was making in the article, and is not joined by ANYONE on the left.

1) there are all sorts of budgets where unspent and unallocated money already exists that could be spent on this. Yet the administration, the OP and the left insists that we not make choices, but instead just print more money.
2) once you decide to start making choices, you can raise the point you'd like to make, which may or may not carry... but at least it has a start

you have a President who has already done similar things for issues he prioritized.
you have a congress who has essentially given him the blanket authority to do so again (in December)
rather than take that and do it, OR suggest that the money come from a DIFFERENT pot, all we've gotten is to print money?

Seriously... Zika is either under HHS or International Aid or both... and there is unspent money there in those budgets for it. Without the pointless debate (at THIS point) about how large our military should be, why would we raid a DIFFERENT account when unspent money exists in accounts directly related to it?

(05-23-2016 04:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 03:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  $1 to the CDC will do far more to save American lives than $1 for the DOD. It's too bad Republicans are too dumb to realize that.

odd that you'd say this, since this is precisely the point that the REPUBLICAN senator was making in the article, and is not joined by ANYONE on the left.

1) there are all sorts of budgets where unspent and unallocated money already exists that could be spent on this. Yet the administration, the OP and the left insists that we not make choices, but instead just print more money.
2) once you decide to start making choices, you can raise the point you'd like to make, which may or may not carry... but at least it has a start

you have a President who has already done similar things for issues he prioritized.
you have a congress who has essentially given him the blanket authority to do so again (in December)
rather than take that and do it, OR suggest that the money come from a DIFFERENT pot, all we've gotten is to print money?

Seriously... Zika is either under HHS or International Aid or both... and there is unspent money there in those budgets for it. Without the pointless debate (at THIS point) about how large our military should be, why would we raid a DIFFERENT account when unspent money exists in accounts directly related to it?

funny how republicans only care about the CDC when there is an ebola or zika crisis.

anyways you can BS all you want, but it's the republicans blocking it not the dems.

you are an amazing partisan hack LS. all I'm gonna say.

(05-23-2016 04:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 04:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 03:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  $1 to the CDC will do far more to save American lives than $1 for the DOD. It's too bad Republicans are too dumb to realize that.

odd that you'd say this, since this is precisely the point that the REPUBLICAN senator was making in the article, and is not joined by ANYONE on the left.

1) there are all sorts of budgets where unspent and unallocated money already exists that could be spent on this. Yet the administration, the OP and the left insists that we not make choices, but instead just print more money.
2) once you decide to start making choices, you can raise the point you'd like to make, which may or may not carry... but at least it has a start

you have a President who has already done similar things for issues he prioritized.
you have a congress who has essentially given him the blanket authority to do so again (in December)
rather than take that and do it, OR suggest that the money come from a DIFFERENT pot, all we've gotten is to print money?

Seriously... Zika is either under HHS or International Aid or both... and there is unspent money there in those budgets for it. Without the pointless debate (at THIS point) about how large our military should be, why would we raid a DIFFERENT account when unspent money exists in accounts directly related to it?

funny how republicans only care about the CDC when there is an ebola or zika crisis.

anyways you can BS all you want, but it's the republicans blocking it not the dems.

Blocking what, exactly?

The money is THERE. That's the point. That ES wants to spend it his way, and micromanage where and how public funds are allocated to winners and losers is on him.

Make it a serious priority and take the money from one of these other idiotic pet projects, there are hundreds of them.

(05-23-2016 04:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 04:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 03:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  $1 to the CDC will do far more to save American lives than $1 for the DOD. It's too bad Republicans are too dumb to realize that.

odd that you'd say this, since this is precisely the point that the REPUBLICAN senator was making in the article, and is not joined by ANYONE on the left.

1) there are all sorts of budgets where unspent and unallocated money already exists that could be spent on this. Yet the administration, the OP and the left insists that we not make choices, but instead just print more money.
2) once you decide to start making choices, you can raise the point you'd like to make, which may or may not carry... but at least it has a start

you have a President who has already done similar things for issues he prioritized.
you have a congress who has essentially given him the blanket authority to do so again (in December)
rather than take that and do it, OR suggest that the money come from a DIFFERENT pot, all we've gotten is to print money?

Seriously... Zika is either under HHS or International Aid or both... and there is unspent money there in those budgets for it. Without the pointless debate (at THIS point) about how large our military should be, why would we raid a DIFFERENT account when unspent money exists in accounts directly related to it?

funny how republicans only care about the CDC when there is an ebola or zika crisis.

anyways you can BS all you want, but it's the republicans blocking it not the dems.

wow... considering your signature, you sure are doing a lot of dancing.

Considering your comments on an over-funded military, while you might disagree on WHERE the money comes from, you certainly seem to agree that money exists. Why is it 'blocking' when a Republican suggests that Zika funding comes from HHS (the department in charge of such things who has slack) or from omnibus international aid funds (for whom such things are also designed) rather than from 'thin air'.... but your suggestion (that it come from the military, which on the surface doesn't have anything to do with mosquitos) wouldn't be blocking?

I'm not defending the Senator. He may well be full of crap. But I KNOW that the OP is full of crap on this issue.


ETA: How exactly am I caring about the CDC any more or less than normal? This is their job, and they have money in their budgets for just such an event. I am merely suggesting they spend their 'outbreak prevention' funds on 'outbreak prevention'. I realize how shocking such things might sound to a democrat.

As for Ebola, you can go look up my comments on that. You might be surprised.