Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Kellhound]

The F-35 cost and administration came out during Biden's presidency, the entire project is an perfect example of political corruption and inefficiency. It only exist to prop up a private company's stock price, an update to our current hardware would be just fine. The United States spends more on conventional arms than the next 5 countries combined, we don't need more toys unlike China.

Like really 2021 called, how many coventional wars has America lost even though we have superior fire power? we have been running with our tails between our legs in all these conflicts because we solely rely on pretty planes that cost a fortune but are really worthless. It's beyond mad that democrats under Biden are doubling down and increasing defense spending on these bloat projects.

Meanwhile we remain underfunded in cyberwarfare, infrastructure to protect against attacks and education to train brilliant hackers but look at the pretty billion dollar paper weight.

Sure, its easy to rest on your laurels, but a lot harder and more expensive to catch up once you figure out the competition has not been. The idea is to be superior to your foe, not equal. China under reports their spending and does not have to be concerned with power projection in two oceans.

That depends on your definition of a conventional war. If you are talking state actor on state actor action, then maybe 1973 in Vietnam, but that was really a conventional war victory and a insurgency defeat. So perhaps 1920 backing the White Russians? Really, in state actor on state actor wars, the US has done very well.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean all the hot wars we've been losing even though we outgun our enemies by leaps and bounds. If conventional weapons won us wars the Taliban, ISIS, Al-Qeda would be gone, Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan would be democratic utopias.

We are stuck in this never ending loop democrat republican doesn't matter they are just like you and want to fight the last war we won. Biden is of the same school of thought spending money on pork projects.

The F-35 is intended for near-peer conflict, not for performing land occupation or COIN. The US military is not designed to be an occupational force, nor is the US generally willing to expend the money needed to win a insurgency.

[PACOX]

l

The F-35 is intended for near-peer conflict, not for performing land occupation or COIN. The US military is not designed to be an occupational force, nor is the US generally willing to expend the money needed to win a insurgency.

Someone should tell that to the politicians. Or we're going to be forever fighting forever wars.

[CostinR]

The F-35 cost and administration came out during Biden's presidency, the entire project is an perfect example of political corruption and inefficiency. It only exist to prop up a private company's stock price, an update to our current hardware would be just fine.

That's the same kind of thinking that has led, and is still leading many European countries...and Canada, to believe they can get away with replacing their decades old jets...with upgraded variants of their older ones.

What you end up with are jets are not only vastly inferior in many key areas then the F-35, remember the F-35 is a stealth plane with a revolutionary digital system that no other has, but also more expensive.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aer...tv-2021-06-21/

"According to insiders, Switzerland can buy a larger number of F-35s with the budgeted 6 billion Swiss francs than would be the case with the three competitors. The F-35's simulator could also be an asset: it would allow the F-35 to carry out significantly more virtual training missions than the competition," SRF's investigative programme Rundschau said in a summary of a report to air on Wednesday.

That's what the Swiss thinking. Yeah the F-35 is right now cheaper and better then competitors.

The United States spends more on conventional arms than the next 5 countries combined, we don't need more toys unlike China.

America's arsenal is decades OLD. You can't just keep using the same tanks, planes, helicopters, ships etc and expect things to go

Like really 2021 called, how many coventional wars has America lost even though we have superior fire power? we have been running with our tails between our legs in all these conflicts because we solely rely on pretty planes that cost a fortune but are really worthless. It's beyond mad that democrats under Biden are doubling down and increasing defense spending on these bloat projects.

The US inflicted staggering casualties for comparatively small losses in every conflict it has fought in during these last twenty years due to the vast difference in firepower. The US needs more firepower to deal with Russia and China, not less and certainly not trying to be cheap about it.

Winning wars however isn't merely about dropping bombs, not when your enemy is getting funded, trained and supported by other nations as proxy forces against you and you aren't willing to go after them. Like Pakistan supporting the Taliban for instance.

Meanwhile we remain underfunded in cyberwarfare, infrastructure to protect against attacks and education to train brilliant hackers but look at the pretty billion dollar paper weight.

The US spends an enormous amount of money on Cyberwarfare as well. Close to 20 billion. Could more be done? Sure, but if you want a strong capable national security force you spend more to get it, not doing trade-offs thinking you can get away cheap in some areas because that NEVER works.

Trying to go cheap is precisely what caused the US a lot of problems in those wars it lost over the last twenty years.

[Draco-Onis]

That's the same kind of thinking that has led, and is still leading many European countries...and Canada, to believe they can get away with replacing their decades old jets...with upgraded variants of their older ones.

What you end up with are jets are not only vastly inferior in many key areas then the F-35, remember the F-35 is a stealth plane with a revolutionary digital system that no other has, but also more expensive.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aer...tv-2021-06-21/



That's what the Swiss thinking. Yeah the F-35 is right now cheaper and better then competitors.

ROFLMAO, is this some kind of a joke? do you not know anything about the development and the cost of the F-35? are you not aware that purchases of it are just a way to curry favor with the US government? everything from its development and its manufacturing are a complete disaster, there's no argument that we would have been better off developing two planes who would be updated versions of what we already have. It's a master of none type of plane nothing about it makes any sense, no country except the US would have been so stupid as to develop something like this.

What you are saying is that my car is old so it's okay to bury 1 million dollars into the ground hoping it will become a car.

The US inflicted staggering casualties for comparatively small losses in every conflict it has fought in during these last twenty years due to the vast difference in firepower.

Who cares about winning battles when you lose wars.

The US needs more firepower to deal with Russia and China, not less and certainly not trying to be cheap about it.

First of all you are trying to justify wasteful spending and second the F-35 is not going to be the game changer in war of nuclear powers. How much dam fucking firepower do you think we need, AGAIN WE SPEND MORE THAN FIVE COUNTRIES COMBINED.

The US spends an enormous amount of money on Cyberwarfare as well. Close to 20 billion. Could more be done? Sure, but if you want a strong capable national security force you spend more to get it, not doing trade-offs thinking you can get away cheap in some areas because that NEVER works.

Trying to go cheap is precisely what caused the US a lot of problems in those wars it lost over the last twenty years.

We spend trillions on these wars trillions which could have been spent here at home and we gained jack shit from it, we lost those wars even though we weren't cheap. It's not about the money it's about fighting a new type of warfare which the US is not equipped to do because we suck at anything other than brute force. We don't need newer toys everyone else is way behind.

- - - Updated - - -

The F-35 is intended for near-peer conflict, not for performing land occupation or COIN. The US military is not designed to be an occupational force, nor is the US generally willing to expend the money needed to win a insurgency.

You were so close I know you get my point so I will drive it home, if other countries are winning these wars on a fraction of a budget and spending, what sense does it make to spend trillions to lose wars? isn't it obvious that the US doesn't have the skill to win these wars because brute force doesn't win them? you are advocating to spend more and more trillions to win when our enemies is doing the same thing but using billions.

What we need are alliances, intelligence, diplomacy and better strategy, you seem to just want keep pissing in the wind. We lost these conflicts not because of lack of funding congress regardless of the administration has continued to write blank checks, Biden has been no exception. I would also argue that it's even dumber to do so considering both democrats and republicans have failed to fix the gaping holes in the way we deal with veterans coming home.

[Kellhound]

ROFLMAO, is this some kind of a joke? do you not know anything about the development and the cost of the F-35? are you not aware that purchases of it are just a way to curry favor with the US government? everything from its development and its manufacturing are a complete disaster, there's no argument that we would have been better off developing two planes who would be updated versions of what we already have. It's a master of none type of plane nothing about it makes any sense, no country except the US would have been so stupid as to develop something like this.

What you are saying is that my car is old so it's okay to bury 1 million dollars into the ground hoping it will become a car.



Who cares about winning battles when you lose wars.




First of all you are trying to justify wasteful spending and second the F-35 is not going to be the game changer in war of nuclear powers. How much dam fucking firepower do you think we need, AGAIN WE SPEND MORE THAN FIVE COUNTRIES COMBINED.



We spend trillions on these wars trillions which could have been spent here at home and we gained jack shit from it, we lost those wars even though we weren't cheap. It's not about the money it's about fighting a new type of warfare which the US is not equipped to do because we suck at anything other than brute force. We don't need newer toys everyone else is way behind.

- - - Updated - - -



You were so close I know you get my point so I will drive it home, if other countries are winning these wars on a fraction of a budget and spending, what sense does it make to spend trillions to lose wars? isn't it obvious that the US doesn't have the skill to win these wars because brute force doesn't win them? you are advocating to spend more and more trillions to win when our enemies is doing the same thing but using billions.

What we need are alliances, intelligence, diplomacy and better strategy, you seem to just want keep pissing in the wind. We lost these conflicts not because of lack of funding congress regardless of the administration has continued to write blank checks, Biden has been no exception. I would also argue that it's even dumber to do so considering both democrats and republicans have failed to fix the gaping holes in the way we deal with veterans coming home.

Do you understand the difference between an conventional state actor vs state actor conflict and a state actor vs insurgent conflict? No, I do not think you do.

So the country with the largest collection of alliances doesn't have enough? The country with the most intelligence gathering equipment and multiple dedicated intel agencies is lacking in this field? I will give you Trump really screwed our soft power, but our strategy vis a vis near peers is actually pretty good.

The US needs a military capable of winning decisively, quickly, and with minimal casualties because the country is full of wimps that cannot stomach a long fight anymore. That costs money. If anything, our defense budget is too small for the tasks at hand.

[CostinR]

Do you understand the difference between an conventional state actor vs state actor conflict and a state actor vs insurgent conflict? No, I do not think you do.

So the country with the largest collection of alliances doesn't have enough? The country with the most intelligence gathering equipment and multiple dedicated intel agencies is lacking in this field? I will give you Trump really screwed our soft power, but our strategy vis a vis near peers is actually pretty good.

The US needs a military capable of winning decisively, quickly, and with minimal casualties because the country is full of wimps that cannot stomach a long fight anymore. That costs money. If anything, our defense budget is too small for the tasks at hand.

Also people who don't comprehend just how cheaply, yes CHEAPLY, the US gets in fighting multi-front wars around the world with minimal casualties because the vast technological advantages it enjoys over it's opponents, but hey flying decades old planes that are falling out of the skies ( a real problem ) works right? Or getting soldiers killed on battlefields because of old and crap equipment is smart.

So yeah the US needs a bigger budget for the missions the military engages around the world today, well over a trillion in fact. It needs a complete overhaul of major equipment from ships to tanks to planes to even the damned rifles.

[Draco-Onis]

Do you understand the difference between an conventional state actor vs state actor conflict and a state actor vs insurgent conflict? No, I do not think you do.

So the country with the largest collection of alliances doesn't have enough? The country with the most intelligence gathering equipment and multiple dedicated intel agencies is lacking in this field? I will give you Trump really screwed our soft power, but our strategy vis a vis near peers is actually pretty good.

The US needs a military capable of winning decisively, quickly, and with minimal casualties because the country is full of wimps that cannot stomach a long fight anymore. That costs money. If anything, our defense budget is too small for the tasks at hand.

Biden is pulling out of Afghanistan on 9/11 neither he or Trump wanted to stay so tell me how this would go according to you.

Afghanistan : 20 years of fighting, 2 trillion dollars, 241,000 lives

How many more years, trillions and lives should this country full of wimps have stomached? Those are the only factors that matter according to you because we have perfect allies, perfect partners and the best intel on the Taliban. Please I will put in the position of Biden, how long and how much would be enough to win?

[tehdang]

Do you understand the difference between an conventional state actor vs state actor conflict and a state actor vs insurgent conflict? No, I do not think you do.

So the country with the largest collection of alliances doesn't have enough? The country with the most intelligence gathering equipment and multiple dedicated intel agencies is lacking in this field? I will give you Trump really screwed our soft power, but our strategy vis a vis near peers is actually pretty good.

The US needs a military capable of winning decisively, quickly, and with minimal casualties because the country is full of wimps that cannot stomach a long fight anymore. That costs money. If anything, our defense budget is too small for the tasks at hand.

Not too small, just too poorly spent. Government waste in defense personnel and contracts is insane. Also, the various departments prioritize too much new, shiny toys.

And it would be nice if it could actually document where the money goes with all the funding it receives. The prior audits, or attempted audits really, just turned up lack of saved information on where money went. And this is coming from someone that expects the military budget to remain high because of the US interests scattered across east Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and the Americas.

[Theodarzna]

I love that the strikes in Syria are called "Defensive", aren't we invading there and occupying their countries oil fields?

[Edge-]

I love that the strikes in Syria are called "Defensive", aren't we invading there and occupying their countries oil fields?

Isn't that the result of those militias attacking locations where US personnel are? I mean, we're not fully out of Iraq yet and have a small footprint, in part specifically to try to deter the Iranian backed militias in the area from continued attacks.

If Iran wants to restart the nuclear deal, which Biden has picked up negotiations on, they need to tell their militias to chill the fuck out. I don't think anyone is terribly pleased to have a continued US special forces presence in the region, but if they're there then they need to defend them. Not responding to attacks on their locations is just begging for more attacks.

[Kellhound]

Biden is pulling out of Afghanistan on 9/11 neither he or Trump wanted to stay so tell me how this would go according to you.

Afghanistan : 20 years of fighting, 2 trillion dollars, 241,000 lives

How many more years, trillions and lives should this country full of wimps have stomached? Those are the only factors that matter according to you because we have perfect allies, perfect partners and the best intel on the Taliban. Please I will put in the position of Biden, how long and how much would be enough to win?

The US has only lost 2312 troops in Afghanistan over 20 years, vs 58,000+ in Vietnam. Deaths are so low in Afghanistan that each one usually makes national news.
There is no such thing as a perfect ally, perfect partner, or perfect intel. The cost would be the amount to remove the reasons to fight for the Taliban. It would also likely require returning to the old status quo of a weak central government in the cities bribing tribal leaders that have been returned to power in the rural areas.

- - - Updated - - -

Not too small, just too poorly spent. Government waste in defense personnel and contracts is insane. Also, the various departments prioritize too much new, shiny toys.

And it would be nice if it could actually document where the money goes with all the funding it receives. The prior audits, or attempted audits really, just turned up lack of saved information on where money went. And this is coming from someone that expects the military budget to remain high because of the US interests scattered across east Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and the Americas.

Old "toys" wear out, so new one's are needed. There is always waste in a government, but be glad we are not anywhere close to the issues India has.

Also, remember that some of that "waste" actually goes to black projects.

- - - Updated - - -

I love that the strikes in Syria are called "Defensive", aren't we invading there and occupying their countries oil fields?

We are invading with less than 1000 troops?

[Theodarzna]

We are invading with less than 1000 troops?

Why is one American soldier in a country that never invited us?

- - - Updated - - -

Isn't that the result of those militias attacking locations where US personnel are? I mean, we're not fully out of Iraq yet and have a small footprint, in part specifically to try to deter the Iranian backed militias in the area from continued attacks.

If Iran wants to restart the nuclear deal, which Biden has picked up negotiations on, they need to tell their militias to chill the fuck out. I don't think anyone is terribly pleased to have a continued US special forces presence in the region, but if they're there then they need to defend them. Not responding to attacks on their locations is just begging for more attacks.

Why is there a US Military installation in a country that never invited the United States into its borders?

[Edge-]

Why is there a US Military installation in a country that never invited the United States into its borders?

I don't think anyone is terribly pleased to have a continued US special forces presence in the region, but if they're there then they need to defend them. Not responding to attacks on their locations is just begging for more attacks.

I'm not thrilled about that they're there, as I stated in my post. Though I'm unsure what that has to do with defending them since they're deployed, even if the preference is they aren't deployed in those countries.

[Theodarzna]

I'm not thrilled about that they're there, as I stated in my post. Though I'm unsure what that has to do with defending them since they're deployed, even if the preference is they aren't deployed in those countries.

So we invade a country, built an army base, and then reserve the right to slaughter people trying to repel an invaders military compound and we claim its "Defensive strikes!" what a crock of shit.

Why is that military compound there at all is the beginning, middle and end of this whole situation. That base shouldn't be there.

[Edge-]

So we invade a country, built an army base, and then reserve the right to slaughter people trying to repel an invaders military compound and we claim its "Defensive strikes!" what a crock of shit.

Again, not in support of those bases (which don't sound like they're newly constructed official compounds, but I haven't read too deeply on it), but if US personnel are there they should be protected from attack.

A discussion on the wisdom of our ongoing foreign policy and military actions in the region would be a very different one, and I imagine you and I have extremely similar views outside of, "If US troops are there, they should be protected, even if we don't like that they're there."

[Theodarzna]

Again, not in support of those bases (which don't sound like they're newly constructed official compounds, but I haven't read too deeply on it), but if US personnel are there they should be protected from attack.

A discussion on the wisdom of our ongoing foreign policy and military actions in the region would be a very different one, and I imagine you and I have extremely similar views outside of, "If US troops are there, they should be protected, even if we don't like that they're there."

You know what would protect them from attack? If they were not trespassing in someone else's country and an uninvited foreign occupier.

I don't have much sympathy for the line of "Well we have to protect our military" when we are deliberately antagonizing people by invading and occupying their country.

The fact that they are there at all IS the entire story. I don't fault Syrians for trying to repel what is to them a hostile foreign invader and is in fact just that, a hostile occupying force with malicious intentions towards Syria.

[Edge-]

You know what would protect them from attack? If they were not trespassing in someone else's country and an uninvited foreign occupier.

I don't have much sympathy for the line of "Well we have to protect our military" when we are deliberately antagonizing people by invading and occupying their country.

The fact that they are there at all IS the entire story. I don't fault Syrians for trying to repel a hostile foreign invader.

Again, if it wasn't clear from my previous posts: I agree. They shouldn't be there and they should be pulled home, only deploying with the express permission of the respective states in the region to support any efforts where we share mutual goals (like combating extremism).

But neither of us controls foreign policy, so that's neither here nor there. You may not have much sympathy for it, but I see people who have no control over where they're deployed potentially being left out to hang in the wind and I'm not down with that, either. Protect them while they're out there, but get them the hell out.

And ignoring that Iran is similarly meddling in other countries by supporting local militias etc., not terribly different from the US putting troops out there, is pretty silly. You can't just pretend that part of the equation doesn't exist, because it does. It takes two to tango, and if Iran wasn't fighting proxy-wars with militias in the region there would likely be less of a "need" to deploy special forces over there.

[Theodarzna]

Again, if it wasn't clear from my previous posts: I agree. They shouldn't be there and they should be pulled home, only deploying with the express permission of the respective states in the region to support any efforts where we share mutual goals (like combating extremism).

Great, that is all that needs to be said. There is no other response that needs to be made unless you are out to carry water for the war machine.

And ignoring that Iran is similarly meddling in other countries by supporting local militias etc., not terribly different from the US putting troops out there, is pretty silly. You can't just pretend that part of the equation doesn't exist, because it does. It takes two to tango, and if Iran wasn't fighting proxy-wars with militias in the region there would likely be less of a "need" to deploy special forces over there.

Iran is Syria's ally, and INVITED by Syria to their country. The United States is a hostile occupying force that is unwelcome and unwanted. Simple as.

[Edge-]

Great, that is all that needs to be said. There is no other response that needs to be made unless you are out to carry water for the war machine.

Not at all. Nuance exists, it's not a binary.

Iran is Syria's ally, and INVITED by Syria to their country. The United States is a hostile occupying force that is unwelcome and unwanted. Simple as.

Ok...and

There were bases struck in Iraq as well (2/3 bases, actually), so Syria has no say over those bases outside their boarders. And the US personnel attacked were in Iraq according to reporting, not Syria. So...again, not Syria's territory, not their authority.

And for reference, these were the groups targeted -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kata%27ib_Hezbollah - Iraqi based militia group allied with Iran/Syria, plenty of operations in Iraq
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kata%2...yid_al-Shuhada - Another Iraqi based militia group allied with Iran/Syria, plenty of operations in Iraq.

So we're not exactly talking about wholly domestic militia groups in Syria really. These militia groups aren't so neatly defined and don't fit into the cookie cutters.

[Draco-Onis]

The US has only lost 2312 troops in Afghanistan over 20 years, vs 58,000+ in Vietnam. Deaths are so low in Afghanistan that each one usually makes national news.
There is no such thing as a perfect ally, perfect partner, or perfect intel. The cost would be the amount to remove the reasons to fight for the Taliban. It would also likely require returning to the old status quo of a weak central government in the cities bribing tribal leaders that have been returned to power in the rural areas.

Oh yea non American lives don't count how lovely, hundreds of thousands of people died and you just hand waived their bodies. You haven't answered the question, 20 years 2 trillion dollars, How many more years and trillions in your opinion would have been enough to win? you called the US a country of wimps because Biden pulled out, feel free to tell us how long we should have waited and how 2 trillion dollars was too cheap.