At least there are no more mean tweets.
2 Likes
Typical Rupert Murdoch disinformation. Another Big Lie like the last one. This time to make the public believe the administration is downsizing the firepower of the USN, when the opposite is true.
As we all know now, RMâs employees lie about big things.
The truth is simple. Read the CBOâs report and analyses of how congress/president plan to expand the size of the USN. (Donât look for it on any outlet owned by RM though. The truth goes to Fox to die.)
Hereâs some takeaways from the report:
Average Total Shipbuilding Costs Over the Next 30 Years Would Be About 23 Percent to 35 Percent More Than Average Appropriations Over the Past 5 Years
The cost of the Navyâs 2023 shipbuilding plan is not only high when compared with recent funding, it is high by historical standards
The Three Alternatives in the 2023 Plan Would Expand the Fleet to Between 316 and 367 Battle Force Ships
the Navy would move toward a larger and more distributed fleet comprising more smaller combat ships and fewer large warships than are in todayâs fleet.
effort to build a fleet whose firepower is greater and distributed among more ships than in todayâs fleet.
2 Likes
What youâve posted is the 30 year plan. Nowhere in the OPâs linked article does it talk about, mention, or allude to a 30 year or even 10 year plan.
As Iâm sure youâve actually read the OPâs linked story (and not just reflexively went into âuuugghhh, Fox News BAAAAADDDâ mode), please cite the lies and false statements in the linked story.
2 Likes
Absolutely correct. And why didnât it? Naval power isnât built up in a single year. It takes years (and billions of dollars) to increase a naval force.
So why did the story omit the truth?
(And by the way., who says RMâs employees lie? RM. So if you think his organization is bad complain to him, not me.)
Ok so now weâve shifted from âmisinformationâ and âbig liesâ to ânot telling the full storyââŚsee? doesnât that feel better?
I would answer your question like this. To me, when I read the story, it was more making the point that the SECNAVâs priorities are not in order as he was quoted as being focused on climate at a time when the 2024 budget calls for shrinking the fleet.
BTW, itâs easy for a president to tout âhisâ 30 year plan when he wonât be around or be held accountable for the proper management or execution of that plan. What the story points out is not what he says heâs gonna do but rather what the last three budgets have sought to do, which is shrink the fleet.
Now, now, nowâŚweâve discussed this alreadyâŚyou complain about FN not telling the full truth, then you post (and repost) this gemâŚcome on nowâŚ
2 Likes
Disinformation purposely brewed to give the impression that the administration is downsizing the USN for climate control.
Skilled disinformation from an organization caught lying on the biggest story of the day.
If you prefer to give a dishonest organizationâwhich its owner swore under oath is the caseâthe benefit of the doubt thatâs on you.
My credo is simple:
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fill me twice, shame on me.
Itâs simple human psychology: Believing FN just incentives them to lie more.
The CBO gives the full story, in all its complexity.
So for you, direct quotes from the SECNAV + data directly from the 2024 budget = lies and disinformationâŚgot it.
Guess we can leave this here as not much can be done with a policy like that.
2 Likes
Fox News apparently lies about these things, so here is the DIRECT QUOTE from the Navy Press Office.
2 Likes
I donât think it matters to him and his ilk. If itâs a topic that FN would report on, it must be disinformation.
For the record, and for the sake of maintaining the sanctity of this important topicâŚIâd like to point out that I showed great restraint by not pouncing on this one:
'jus sayinâŚ
1 Like
Thanks for thisâŚhe didnât just MENTION climateâŚthe ENTIRE speech was about climate. From the SECNAVâŚseems like a strange person to send on this mission, but maybe heâs not busy?
1 Like
Thanks @Flyer69 for making my point for me. The FN article is a textbook example of disinformation.
Analysis:
The first paragraph:
Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro said he sees fighting climate change as a top priority for the Navy as the Biden administration proposes shrinking the fleet by two ships and worries grow about how the U.S. Navy stacks up to Chinaâs.
Right there the writer has stated that that climate change is the top priority. He uses the article âaâ but to the casual reader the message is that climate change is THE top priority. A magician âs trick with language. In the same intro the winter links this to downsizing of the navy just as we presumably prepare for war with China.
Most FN readers stop reading right here, high on a pharmaceutical grade outrage high.
The trouble is the SecNav never said it was THE top priority. He said:
âAs the Secretary of the Navy, I can tell you that I have made climate one of my top priorities since the first day I came into office.â
One of several. How many?3? 10? The writer (no reporter) never thinks to ask. You may disagree with SecNav about the global effects of climate change, but he never said that as SeNav all other considerations are secondary, which the FN article would have us believe.
And nowhere in his speechâ which was made to an audience in the Bahamas expressly on the topic of climate changeâis any mention made about downsizing the navy or China.
The ânewsâ article isnât a news article. The first paragraph twists one of several priorities into THE priority by skillful if dishonest use of language, then ties the speech in the readerâs mind with concepts not found in the speech.
The writer never mentions the necessarily long term plans of congress/president to increase the fire power of the USN.
Typical outrage meth.
You make these statements based on what? (Spoiler alert: Your personal/political bias.)
Also, you give off a vibe of having a superiority complex, i.e., the casual reader and most FN readers arenât as smart, nuanced, or capable of reading the article and forming their own opinions as I am/we are here on the moral high ground.) Personally, I find this attitude from liberals nearly as off-putting as many of the policies they back.
1 Like
The fact that anyone reads Fox.
I mean you are talking about an organization that knowingly put on their station Sidney Powell as an expert about their stolen election bullshit. Even as these same Murdoch employees were emailing each other that Powell cited as her source a headless time- traveling entity that spoke to her in her dreams.
Look it up.
They knew this bat shit craziness and still they repeatedly and avidly put her on air as factual.
If you can get away with such comic-book looniness with your viewers why would you expect your readers to actually delve into the news?
Also, not liberal. A proud independent centrist. Liberal Democrats have their own nuttiness but lately the hard Right makes them seem normal.
To be clear, not a liberal or not the liberal? No matter, I have faith the readers of gCaptain forum can accurately evaluate this statement on their own.
1 Like
The Navy may be able to adapt to climate change but little ability to fight it. In any case it would not be an immediate threat.
1 Like
New policy: when thereâs a torpedo in the water, only increase to eco speed
1 Like
Further driving a stake into recent disinformation about the USA not doing enough to counter China militarily is this news today. The Defense Secretary is asking Congress for a 40% increase in spending specifically to counter China.
So, the real question isnât, Is the USA spending enough preparing for a possible war, but, Is it spending more than taxpayers are willing to pay?
From AP News today [By the way, did we all know that Fox regularly runs stories from AP?] Not behind a firewall:
WASHINGTON (AP) â The U.S. military must be ready for possible confrontation with China, the Pentagonâs leaders said Thursday, pushing Congress to approve the Defense Departmentâs proposed $842 billion budget, which would modernize the force in Asia and around the world.
âThis is a strategy-driven budget â and one driven by the seriousness of our strategic competition with the Peopleâs Republic of China,â Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said in testimony before the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense.
Pointing to increases in new technology, such as hypersonics, Austin said the budget proposes to spend more than $9 billion, a 40% increase over last year, to build up military capabilities in the Pacific and defend alliesâŚ
Right. So because:
Then we shouldnât believe FN stories that originate in the AP? Or is this your Credo (2.0) which says you make exceptions for stories you agree with?