Confirmation hearing: Emsworth for SecDef

[The Duke]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=profile;u=539;sa=showPosts;start=330

In case anyone cares.

[The Duke]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=profile;u=539;sa=showPosts;start=330

In case anyone cares.

If that matters, then JFK should not have been SecDef either.

Why is it problematic to put a link to someone's posts?

[The Duke]

As I see Atlasia being more involved in such operations in the future...

To add to my previous post, I think that we have a slight difference of opinion here. I believe that if Atlasia were to restrict itself to wars of self-defense, it appears unlikely that too many new operations would ensue.

Moreover, a proposed expansion in the carrier fleet would have to be balanced against budgetary concerns. As you of course know, we face a large deficit at this time. Budgetary concerns were among the reasons for which I did not indicate complete support for the proposal.

With all due respect, the war in Afghanistan was heavily sustained by carriers operating in support of gorund forces.  Unless you believe this was not a war of self defense, you're basically going to have no choice but to accept Senator Supersoulty's characterization of our Navy's mission.

[The Duke]

With all due respect, the war in Afghanistan was heavily sustained by carriers operating in support of gorund forces.

I never indicated anything to the contrary. I merely suggested that the budget deficit should be weighed against extending military spending.

Well, I understand that, and I don't totally object, but it worries me a little that you characterized the mission of the Navy the way you did.  If you'd like to clarify, I'm more than willing to write it off as a misunderstanding.