Rand Paul: Obama Cutting Tomahawk Missile Makes No Sense

[GunnyFreedom]

Tomahawks and hellfires seem to be 2 of the most effective weapons to wreak havok in unconstitutional pre-emptive wars. I'm no expert but have they ever been used in anything but that? (not including training)

We have not had a legitimate Constitutional war since these weapons were invented. However, missiles were used in legitimate wars back to the American Revolution. If we had a legitimate Constitutional war of defense, then Tomahawks and hellfires would be a huge, and legitimate part of that defensive war.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

No it's not the same. Guns are used in a moral way every day for centuries. Name the day when when tomahawks and hellfires were.

You are begging the question. Americans have never used assault rifles in a Constitutional war either, therefore let's ban them.

 

[WD-NY]

Rand proposes cutting $70Billion of identified wasteful non-defense spending in the "defense budget" instead of a 124Million on a proven technology that is arguably constitutional in the realm of national defense. He further proposes auditing the pentagon in order to cut more spending, ending nation building and policing overseas. And yet he gets criticized by the peanut gallery.

This! (X 1000)

Do the grumblers amongst us honestly/seriously not grok how rhetorically & politically difficult it is to successfully come off as sounding/being "tough on defense" after spinning making the case for cutting defense spending by $70B in return for $124M in continued spending (on a entirely legitimate use of federal dollars)??

There are probably less than half a dozen politicians in the last half century capable of this level of political judo/jujitsu, and 3 of them = Reagan, Clinton & Obama

For comparison, here's how Ron made the case:

 

[messana]

The Tomahawk program is already paid for. Scrapping it means that now there will be a new program, and a new Defense Contractor will get new Trillions of dollars.

Rand Paul said something different.

Obama’s fiscal year budget for 2015 would make significant cuts to the Tomahawk program and would eliminate it completely by 2016. There are reportedly no plans to replace it with another comparable weapon, or any weapon, for that matter.

 

[alucard13mm]

Cut the F35. Done.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Rand Paul said something different.

Except there IS already such a program as a matter of public record as already covered in this thread, and as a US Senator, I am pretty sure Rand knows it. And even if there weren't, I can all but guarantee you that the US DOD will not let a decade go by without having a cruise missile capability.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Cut the F35. Done.

This. Times a million. The F35 is just about the worst if not the absolute worst boondoggle in US military history. The F22 was already paid for when it was scrapped and replaced with the F35 starting from scratch....... oh wait where have I heard that before?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

This! (X 1000)

Do the grumblers amongst us honestly/seriously not grok how rhetorically & politically difficult it is to successfully come off as sounding/being "tough on defense" after spinning making the case for cutting defense spending by $70B in return for $124M in continued spending (on a entirely legitimate use of federal dollars)??

There are probably less than half a dozen politicians in the last half century capable of this level of political judo/jujitsu, and 3 of them = Reagan, Clinton & Obama

Rand Paul used restoring sequester cuts in his budget (as part of increasing DoD spending) as a talking/selling point in his budget. Why didn't he propose cutting waste from his budget?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

This! (X 1000)

Do the grumblers amongst us honestly/seriously not grok how rhetorically & politically difficult it is to successfully come off as sounding/being "tough on defense" after spinning making the case for cutting defense spending by $70B in return for $124M in continued spending (on a entirely legitimate use of federal dollars)??

There are probably less than half a dozen politicians in the last half century capable of this level of political judo/jujitsu, and 3 of them = Reagan, Clinton & Obama

Thank you, that clip brings back tears of joy!

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Rand Paul used restoring sequester cuts in his budget (as part of increasing DoD spending) as a talking/selling point in his budget. Why didn't he propose cutting waste from his budget?

Because that rhetoric hasn't been working in the last 30 years, so he used different rhetoric to describe his proposed $70Bn in cuts?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Because that rhetoric hasn't been working in the last 30 years, so he used different rhetoric to describe his proposed $70Bn in cuts?

He writes in an op ed that he proposes $70 billion in cuts, and his actual budget increased DoD spending, while rhetorically attacking meager reductions in the rate of increase as harming defense.

Freedom?

 

[fr33]

You are begging the question. Americans have never used assault rifles in a Constitutional war either, therefore let's ban them.

No. Americans have defended themselves and put food on the table by using assault rifles. Until you and I have access to tomahawks and hellfires then your argument will not hold water. Until that happens it is not comparable to make the gun/missile argument. We're not even talking about banning something like guns. We're talking about cutting spending for something only the government uses.

I would expect you to understand how the MIC works. Right now they lobby for war hawk politicians because they "need" to replace the stockpiles of missiles in order to make money. It is effective because of how monopolies on violence work. Drastic cuts are desperately needed in order to fix this situation.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

No. Americans have defended themselves and put food on the table by using assault rifles. Until you and I have access to tomahawks and hellfires then your argument will not hold water. Until that happens it is not comparable to make the gun/missile argument. We're not even talking about banning something like guns. We're talking about cutting spending for something only the government uses.

I would expect you to understand how the MIC works. Right now they lobby for war hawk politicians because they "need" to replace the stockpiles of missiles in order to make money. It is effective because of how monopolies on violence work. Drastic cuts are desperately needed in order to fix this situation.

Nations have used rockets for defensive wars since ancient China. It's only when they get fancied up and turned into assault rockets that you have a problem with them. Assault rifles are illegal in the United States, the only people who hunt with them are shooting critters in a war zone for sport. Therefore let's keep the regular rockets that have been used for legitimate defense for thousands of years and ban assault rockets because they are creepy.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'm fine with this. Between the Pacific/Atlantic, Canada/Mexico, and our Nuclear arsenal, not to mention Naval presence, we're not in any danger of imminent or feasible invasion for....any foreseeable future. Americans are cowardly, paranoid, paternalistic and bellicose. All those together create a thousand fold danger than ever existed. Frankly, the media is far more deleterious to our safety than any so-called foreign power. Now, can we have our taxes cut by apportioned to the hundreds of millions that is being saved by axing the Tomahawks?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

He writes in an op ed that he proposes $70 billion in cuts, and his actual budget increased DoD spending, while rhetorically attacking meager reductions in the rate of increase as harming defense.

Freedom?

You sure do have a talent for spin. Any budget cuts that start longer than 2 years out are questionable at best. Any cuts that start 5 years out are illegitimate. Rand's budget frontloads DOD spending into year 1 and then starts the cuts in year 2. That's 12 months before the cuts start. Even Ron Paul's standards for future cuts works with that plan.

 

[fr33]

Nations have used rockets for defensive wars since ancient China. It's only when they get fancied up and turned into assault rockets that you have a problem with them. Assault rifles are illegal in the United States, the only people who hunt with them are shooting critters in a war zone for sport. Therefore let's keep the regular rockets that have been used for legitimate defense for thousands of years and ban assault rockets because they are creepy.

If I was "begging the question" like you accused then you are BEGGING the question even moreso.

You are now defining the assault rifle differently than the Clinton ban did. It's a dumb way to define something though. Every rifle is an assault rifle.

A better solution than you, Rand, or Obama has come up with would be to make it legal for all of us to own rockets. If "shall not be infringed" had not be interpreted to mean "infringe this", we wouldn't even be having this discussion and many wars would not have happened. This has been my whole point even though I didn't explain it thoroughly before. Until that happens I support cutting spending for every weapon of war that I cannot legally own.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

You sure do have a talent for spin. Any budget cuts that start longer than 2 years out are questionable at best. Any cuts that start 5 years out are illegitimate. Rand's budget frontloads DOD spending into year 1 and then starts the cuts in year 2. That's 12 months before the cuts start. Even Ron Paul's standards for future cuts works with that plan.

And do you really think Congress would let those cuts go through, or do you think they'd take an emergency vote shortly before they were to take place and restore the funding to previous year's levels plus 7%?

Current year cuts are all that matter.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

If I was "begging the question" like you accused then you are BEGGING the question even moreso.

Absolutely not. There would appear to be a blind spot in your perception here. "Begging the question" is the name of an informal fallacy in logic where the user presumes the conclusion as a component of their premises.

You are now defining the assault rifle differently than the Clinton ban did.

Absolutely. I do not destroy the English language the way Clinton and Feinstein do.

It's a dumb way to define something though. Every rifle is an assault rifle.

Absolutely not. An "Assault Rifle" is a very specific kind of rifle that has been extensively defined from it's conception with the German sturmgewehr, all the way up until Clinton decided to muddle the language for his personal agenda.

Taking your logic, every rocket is a cruise missile. Does not compute.

A better solution than you, Rand, or Obama has come up with would be to make it legal for all of us to own rockets. If "shall not be infringed" had not be interpreted to mean "infringe this", we wouldn't even be having this discussion and many wars would not have happened. This has been my whole point even though I didn't explain it thoroughly before. Until that happens I support cutting spending for every weapon of war that I cannot legally own.

I am on record on these very forums since 2007 advocating that citizens should be able to own tanks, rockets, and missiles. Where have you been?

 

[fr33]

I am on record on these very forums since 2007 advocating that citizens should be able to own tanks, rockets, and missiles. Where have you been?

The first step is to defund the monopoly they have.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The first step is to defund the monopoly they have.

I have seriously sat here and tried, and I can not see any logical process that starts with "ending a DOD weapon program" and ends with "Joe Citizen is allowed to own one of these."