-
-
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
" michaels" indeed, the "filth" is launched as we speak; the lobby has got its " claws" already deep into CNN, to blackball this guy as much as possible.
They even invited some nuthead Republican senator from Arkansas (who barely left his diapers) to comment, who had the guts with a straight face that the Iraq war was completely justified; he even stuck to it when he was asked if the 6000 plus and 100,000 other victems and trillions in cost were mentioned; how can any State sent such a numskull to Washington? I'm getting more and more the idea, that regardless of a Democratic victory we are being snowballed by the Republicans, so no headway at all I predict, especially on defense reductions and a better foreign policy.
-
-
-
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Yes, I also believe that Chuck Hagel is the most qualified for the job. But Dutch has a very good point about reining in military expenditures. Robert Gates tried and was only partially successful stopping production of the ill fated Lockheed F-22 fighter jet at 188 aircraft or just $412 million per plane. The military is now pursuing the next latest and greatest replacement for the F-22...Lockheed's F-35. Why drop the F-22 for the F-35? Could it be that the F-22 was ill suited to fly combat missions like those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. The F-22 has yet to fly a single combat mission...not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, not in Libya...nowhere.
Time Magazine: The Strange Case of the (Nearby) But Missing F-22s Over Libya
Lots of excuses were made by the military for not using the F-22 over Iraq and Afghanistan, but then when it came to the possibility of using the F-22 over Libya they got really excited. From the Time article:
"Air Force boosters were salivating at the prospect of the F-22′s combat debut. One veteran fighter pilot privately told Aviation Week magazine Libya would be a “perfect scenario” for the F-22′s baptism by fire.
"In fact, it appears the U.S. military went out of its way to use every warplane in its inventory except the F-22 in the Libyan fight: A-10s, AC-130s, AV-8Bs, B-1s, B-2s, F-15s, F-16s and F-18s all saw action. Why the F-22 didn’t see action depends on whom you ask.
"Nearly two weeks later, the U.S. piece of the Libyan war began — and ended — without the F-22s. When Rear Adm. Gerald Hueber, chief of staff of the operation, was asked how come the F-22 was AWOL after four days of action, he responded forthrightly: “I don’t have that…answer.”
Robert Gates certainly didn't have much positive to say about the F-22:
"The F-22 is a “niche, silver-bullet solution for one or two potential scenarios, specifically the defeat of a highly advanced enemy fighter fleet,” Gates said in 2009 when he was fighting to slay the F-22 dragon over strong Air Force opposition. “The F-22, to be blunt, does not make much sense any place else in the spectrum of conflict.”
"Gates went on to elaborate in a way that angers many wearing Air Force blue. “Supporters of the F-22 lately have promoted its use for an ever-expanding list of potential missions,” he noted. “These range from protecting the homeland from seaborne cruise missiles to, as one retired general recommended on television, using F-22s to go after Somali pirates, who are — in many cases, teenagers with AK-47s — a job we already happen to know is better done, and at rather less cost, by a few Navy SEALs.”"
In reading about the F-22 it has a lot of flaws and it crashes when just flying training missions. And some pilots refuse to fly it. And now we have Lockheed's F-35...supposedly cheaper. However, the cost of the development of that fighter jet is already 70 percent over budget and it too is beset with problems. It's like the Oklahoma Guarantee: "You don't like that one and I'll give you another one just like it."
Critics are wondering if the Lockheed's F-35 capabilities have been oversold...and even worse if it even has a future role in the new frontier for the military...southeast Asia and the China Sea. Like the F-22, will it ever fly a combat mission?
So why do we go down this path again and again? Follow the money and you'll understand: Open Secrets: Top Contributors: Defense
Just take a look at the list: Northrop Grumman is No.1 followed closely by Lockheed Martin.
The F-22 and F-35 are just two examples of military largess. You can look back at a whole host of military toys and find a similar story behind each one...like the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV)...also wisely cancelled by Robert Gates.
I sure hope Hagel will be successful in reining in military spending and changing the culture that deems all these toys necessary to protect our democracy and "freedom."
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
"schmidt" I've mentioned exactly in other " threads" what you describe; the F35 is a total disaster and a very costly item; like the F22 the maintenance cost will be enormous and the use for that plane is limited; since the " airforce" is not a "civil" organisation the maintenance is not done as strictly as I'm used to. Neither is it built to do the number of cycles as a civil aircraft; so in no time again something "new" will have to replace it if we continue on the same track. As you may have seen in my threads I worked in the civil aviation and did also do some government contract bidding for aircraft; the prices are always inflated because of the "lobyists" all the way to Washington every one involved wants to get paid. But regardless of what people say about this topic; Washington is deaf and blind and hands out contracts left and right and already spent more than 600 billion in the last half of 2012 ( which was supposed to be a fiscal cliff cut; instead of expenditure!!!) Hoeray, we succeeded to fool the ignorant people again!! The biggest joke is the Brits invented this type of plane (Harrier) it worked fine; but of course the US has to have much more Cadillac style plane like the F35 with teething problems all over. We are the suckers paying for it; Bin Laden is laughing in his grave for sure!!
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
" schmidt" you are right on the money; indeed I'm affraid that "bunch" have robbed this country in a huge way for a long time.
I hope you read my point on the Brennan nomination; the " drone" issue is an extreemly dangerous one; until now we do not know who was killed by these things and even if they would disclose this they could leave half of it out; they may not only kill so called "terrorists" but also someone who knows too much about their " games" maybe a type of "wiki-leaks" guy or something like it. I'm convinced this will eventually bite us in the butt, because the people who we did not kill will seek revenge for sure. Therefore I do not trust this Brennan guy.
Also look into the "thread" about the " dirty bomb" search helicopters in Washington which I wrote; I think we are heading in the wrong direction.
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
michaels wrong again on the military budget.
From wikipedia Federal budget FY11:
Medicare/medicaid 23%
Social Security 20%
Defense 19%
Entitlement programs are still by far the biggest chunk of the budget. I agree with most (or all) on this Democratichub that the defense budget is too large and should be reduced but it's not "the largest item in the budget."
I would imagine that these numbers are still accurate or very close for the current fiscal year.
dutch you do not trust the Brennan guy, I do not trust ANY elected or appointed government official. Who would, and why would they? After their election they change into completely different people. Campaign promises...what campaign promises? Who needs campaign promises AFTER the election?
-
-
-
-
|