Balu
06-22-2015, 08:43 PM
Marines looking to deploy on foreign ships because the U.S. doesn’t have enough June 22, 2015
Anyone who thinks Barack Obama never saw a dollar he didn’t want to spend . . . OK, that’s probably true, but there are some reasons for spending a dollar for which he doesn’t have much use. And as we all know, the military is at the top of that list. Every dollar spent on the Armed Forces is a dollar Obama can’t spend regulating industry, having the IRS harass his political opponents or illegally subsidizing health care premiums.
<tbody>
</tbody>
So why build enough ships for the Marines to fulfill their responsibilities. President Leading From Behind doesn’t want the U.S. to be a global leader anyway, and hey, there’s always foreign ships! Maybe they can hitch a ride on them. Now this is the point where you probably think I’m slipping into the absurd to get your attention.
Nope (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/06/21/marines-amphibious/28935549/):
Faced with a shortage of U.S. Navy ships, the Marine Corps is exploring a plan to deploy its forces aboard foreign vessels to ensure they can respond quickly to global crises around Europe and western Africa.
The initiative is a stopgap way to deploy Marines aboard ships overseas until more American vessels are available, said Brig. Gen. Norman Cooling, deputy commander, U.S. Marine Corps Forces Europe and Africa.
The Marines will be able to respond quickly to evacuate embassies or protect U.S. property and citizens, a need highlighted by the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador.
“There’s no substitute for U.S. amphibious” vessels, Cooling said. “We’re looking at other options” in the meantime, he added.
The Marines have been working with Spain, Italy, the United Kingdom and other close allies to determine the suitability of the foreign ships for U.S. personnel and aircraft.
The units would be designed for limited operations and not major amphibious assaults. A ground force of about 100 to 120 Marines would be deployed along with three or four Ospreys, which fly like airplanes but can take off and land like helicopters.
The U.S. Navy has 30 amphibious ships but says it needs 38 to fulfill war fighting requirements. It won’t reach that level until 2028 because of budget constraints, according to the Navy.
You know, this is funny, this talk of “budget constraints.” The U.S spends upwards of $3.7 trillion every year, and it’s been that way ever since 2009 when the Democrats passed an $862 billion spending blowout they claimed was a one-time “stimulus package,” but was actually added to the budgeting baseline for subsequent years. You probably didn’t notice that because the Democrat-controlled Senate under the leadership of Harry Reid simply stopped passing budgets. But they didn’t stop spending the money.
So if there are “budget constraints” for the Pentagon, it’s only because Congress and the administration went so completely hog-wild in every other aspect of the federal budget - running deficits north of $1 trillion five years in a row, and having an absolute conniption fit when Republicans tried to demand spending reductions in exchange for raising the debt ceiling.
So now we don’t have enough ships for the Marines to do their jobs, and they’re seriously having to seek space on foreign ships.
Nice job, the 52 percent of you idiots who re-elected this guy.
http://canadafreepress.com/article/73093
Anyone who thinks Barack Obama never saw a dollar he didn’t want to spend . . . OK, that’s probably true, but there are some reasons for spending a dollar for which he doesn’t have much use. And as we all know, the military is at the top of that list. Every dollar spent on the Armed Forces is a dollar Obama can’t spend regulating industry, having the IRS harass his political opponents or illegally subsidizing health care premiums.
<tbody>
</tbody>
So why build enough ships for the Marines to fulfill their responsibilities. President Leading From Behind doesn’t want the U.S. to be a global leader anyway, and hey, there’s always foreign ships! Maybe they can hitch a ride on them. Now this is the point where you probably think I’m slipping into the absurd to get your attention.
Nope (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/06/21/marines-amphibious/28935549/):
Faced with a shortage of U.S. Navy ships, the Marine Corps is exploring a plan to deploy its forces aboard foreign vessels to ensure they can respond quickly to global crises around Europe and western Africa.
The initiative is a stopgap way to deploy Marines aboard ships overseas until more American vessels are available, said Brig. Gen. Norman Cooling, deputy commander, U.S. Marine Corps Forces Europe and Africa.
The Marines will be able to respond quickly to evacuate embassies or protect U.S. property and citizens, a need highlighted by the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador.
“There’s no substitute for U.S. amphibious” vessels, Cooling said. “We’re looking at other options” in the meantime, he added.
The Marines have been working with Spain, Italy, the United Kingdom and other close allies to determine the suitability of the foreign ships for U.S. personnel and aircraft.
The units would be designed for limited operations and not major amphibious assaults. A ground force of about 100 to 120 Marines would be deployed along with three or four Ospreys, which fly like airplanes but can take off and land like helicopters.
The U.S. Navy has 30 amphibious ships but says it needs 38 to fulfill war fighting requirements. It won’t reach that level until 2028 because of budget constraints, according to the Navy.
You know, this is funny, this talk of “budget constraints.” The U.S spends upwards of $3.7 trillion every year, and it’s been that way ever since 2009 when the Democrats passed an $862 billion spending blowout they claimed was a one-time “stimulus package,” but was actually added to the budgeting baseline for subsequent years. You probably didn’t notice that because the Democrat-controlled Senate under the leadership of Harry Reid simply stopped passing budgets. But they didn’t stop spending the money.
So if there are “budget constraints” for the Pentagon, it’s only because Congress and the administration went so completely hog-wild in every other aspect of the federal budget - running deficits north of $1 trillion five years in a row, and having an absolute conniption fit when Republicans tried to demand spending reductions in exchange for raising the debt ceiling.
So now we don’t have enough ships for the Marines to do their jobs, and they’re seriously having to seek space on foreign ships.
Nice job, the 52 percent of you idiots who re-elected this guy.
http://canadafreepress.com/article/73093