14
   

Obama's State of the Union

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 08:27 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Which 'vital' weapons programs have been eliminated by Liberals, exactly?

Cycloptichorn


In recent times, the one that really stands out is the F-22 fighter.


Right, because we sure are seeing a lot of air-to-air battles these days Rolling Eyes No F-22 has ever flown a single acknowledged combat mission.

The F-22 is, to the best of my knowledge, unmatched in the skies today. By a long shot. And the 180+ operational units we have, why, that's just not enough to maintain our edge in the air-to-air battles we're not having?

Quote:
It is funny, a lot of our allies begged to be allowed to buy F-22s for themselves, with their own money, and the liberals blocked even that.


I am 100% behind policies denying selling our cutting-edge military technology to our allies - or anyone else. Let them invest the time and effort to build their own weapons, should they desire superiority. Otherwise, they can be happy with our models that are two or three designs back. And they will still maintain relative superiority against their enemies with those designs, let alone ours.

Our air force needs no current modernizing, when the old design is still so superior to anything else on the planet. Why waste all those taxpayer dollars developing an un-needed aircraft to counter a threat that doesn't exist?

I find your argument to be lacking. What other examples do you have? Or is that it?

Cycloptichorn
engineer
 
  5  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 09:56 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Don't forget that the two ultra-liberals who slashed the F22 from the budget were Sec. Def Gates and Sen McCain.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 10:07 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Which 'vital' weapons programs have been eliminated by Liberals, exactly?

Cycloptichorn


In recent times, the one that really stands out is the F-22 fighter.


Right, because we sure are seeing a lot of air-to-air battles these days Rolling Eyes No F-22 has ever flown a single acknowledged combat mission.


Well, at least you're no longer denying that liberals want to disarm our military.

Again, I point out that our options with China are:

a) to be strong enough to fight them if they choose war.

b) to let them massacre us in a war, then after they have finished annihilating our military, let them go on to conquer the world.

c) to just meekly let them conquer the world, while doing nothing to challenge them.



Cycloptichorn wrote:
The F-22 is, to the best of my knowledge, unmatched in the skies today. By a long shot.


Note that this is a project that the liberals cancelled before we could get adequate numbers of planes.



Cycloptichorn wrote:
And the 180+ operational units we have, why, that's just not enough to maintain our edge in the air-to-air battles we're not having?


Adequately replacing our current air-to-air fighters with F-22s would require building about 750 of them (and building new ones to replace any that crash).

It is possible to modernize our air force using only F-35s (though it isn't good to put all your eggs in one basket), but that requires going forward with the F-35 program instead of letting the liberals cancel that program as well.



Cycloptichorn wrote:
oralloy wrote:
It is funny, a lot of our allies begged to be allowed to buy F-22s for themselves, with their own money, and the liberals blocked even that.


I am 100% behind policies denying selling our cutting-edge military technology to our allies - or anyone else. Let them invest the time and effort to build their own weapons, should they desire superiority. Otherwise, they can be happy with our models that are two or three designs back.


As I said, the liberals also want any ally of the US to have inferior arms.



Cycloptichorn wrote:
And they will still maintain relative superiority against their enemies with those designs, let alone ours.


No, China is developing advanced stealth fighters. If our allies try to fend off Chinese aggression with 1980s technology, they'll get slaughtered.



Cycloptichorn wrote:
Our air force needs no current modernizing, when the old design is still so superior to anything else on the planet.


The old designs are not superior to everything else on the planet.

The rest of the world has moved on, and our 1980s tech is now inferior to everything else on the planet.

And just as with our allies, if we try to fend off Chinese aggression using 1980s technology, we'll get slaughtered.



Cycloptichorn wrote:
Why waste all those taxpayer dollars developing an un-needed aircraft to counter a threat that doesn't exist?


The threat does exist, and the aircraft are very much needed.

And preventing the bad guys from taking over the planet is far from a waste of money.



Cycloptichorn wrote:
I find your argument to be lacking. What other examples do you have? Or is that it?

Cycloptichorn


I'm sure I could find other examples, but I'm convinced that our exchange has decisively proven that the liberals want to disarm the free world so that the bad guys can conquer us all.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 10:14 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
Don't forget that the two ultra-liberals who slashed the F22 from the budget were Sec. Def Gates and Sen McCain.


Gates believes that the F-35 is a revolutionary step forward that will make previous fighter designs obsolete.

He might be right. But it's sort of a gamble. Technological hopes don't always pan out.

McCain didn't have any F-22 factories in his state, but has lots of F-35 manufacturing in his state.

Both of them argued that the F-35 program should continue. They did not argue for cancelling both fighter programs.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 10:26 pm
@oralloy,
Your 'argument' is one assertion after another.

You claim China is going to attack us, but provide no evidence that they have any capability to do so. How exactly do you think they are going to get those fighters here? China has exactly one aircraft carrier, and we could sink it in an instant if we chose to do so. They have no ability to challenge us for ownership of the Pacific. How exactly are they going to get troops here to support their invasion? Enough troops to overcome the rather stiff resistance they will meet upon arrival?

The entire idea is farcical and would profit them absolutely nothing at all. The idea that a threat from China justifies spending billions on fighters that are extremely unlikely to ever see action is not a serious one.

Cycloptichorn
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 10:27 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
he just wants to fly an f-22 home as part of the militia, cyclops...
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 10:34 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Rubio is a confused politican; he takes, but doesn't want anyone else to benefit the same way he or his parents did from our government.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 10:37 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Your 'argument' is one assertion after another.

You claim China is going to attack us, but provide no evidence that they have any capability to do so.


China won't conquer us until they have conquered most of the rest of the world first.

China will start by conquering our close allies Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Taiwan.



Cycloptichorn wrote:
The idea that a threat from China justifies spending billions on fighters that are extremely unlikely to ever see action is not a serious one.

Cycloptichorn


It is serious for anyone who wishes the free world to remain free.

Expensive weapons may not see much action if they result in the bad guys just choosing to avoid war in the first place.

But that is a lot better than letting the bad guys conquer the world because we have no way to stand up to them.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 10:48 pm
@oralloy,
You wrote,
Quote:

It is serious for anyone who wishes the free world to remain free.


We are not the world's police. Can you get through your thick skull?

Why would China want to be isolated from the rest of the world by attacking its neighbors?

0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2013 11:22 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:
he just wants to fly an f-22 home as part of the militia, cyclops...


A fighter jet is not an individual weapon.

Militiamen have the right to keep things like machine guns, grenades/grenade launchers, anti-tank bazookas, and Stinger missiles in their homes.

Also, I'm not opposed to trying an all F-35 Air Force.

It is the move to cut both the F-22 and F-35 that is problematical.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 09:10 am


http://www.dineshdsouza.com/
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 09:43 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Oralloy read Clancy's Debt of Honor and thought it was a documentary.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 09:55 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
Oralloy read Clancy's Debt of Honor and thought it was a documentary.


Nope. Never read anything by Clancy.

I just disagree with the liberals' hatred of freedom in all its forms.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 10:00 am
@oralloy,


Liberal democrats tend to accept fiction as reality without question.
Example: If Obama says it, they believe it even though the opposite of whatever he said is the reality
0 Replies
 
aspvenom
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 10:37 am
@oralloy,
F-35 vs F22, F-35 is going down. F-22 is specifically made of aerial dominance while F-35 is for air to land assaults. F-35 is only the second best, with respect to aerial warfare. This is one major reason that F-22 was not for sale to any of the allies of America. I don't see this discontinuation of F-22 as a "revolutionary step forward that will make previous fighter designs obsolete."
They could have just be truthful for once and stated that F-22's are too expensive for a threat that's not there at the moment.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 10:48 am
@oralloy,
Sure.

High taxes to pay for a military powerful enough to oppress us is freedom.

Preventing people from being bankrupted by medical costs is oppression.

Making sure that pregnant women are denied abortions is caring.

Caring for starving kids is hate.

Xenophobia is justified.

Science is a religion.

Gotcha.
Cycloptichorn
 
  5  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 10:55 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Your 'argument' is one assertion after another.

You claim China is going to attack us, but provide no evidence that they have any capability to do so.


China won't conquer us until they have conquered most of the rest of the world first.


China has no ability to 'conquer' the rest of the world. You seem to have a serious misunderstanding of the logistics involved in not only mounting an assualt, but in taking and holding land. They simply don't have the military forces necessary to do so. They couldn't even hold all of Asia, let alone any other continent.

Quote:
China will start by conquering our close allies Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Taiwan.


You are a moron if you think this has any chance of coming true. It simply doesn't.

Why am I even wasting my time responding to your fever dreams of repelling a Red Dawn-style invasion?

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 11:21 am
@Cycloptichorn,
oralboy is a moron; his ideas are usually self-imagined to create fear in other people - who are also gullible to such nonsense.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 11:32 am
@cicerone imposter,
Drunk Drunk Laughing
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2013 11:55 am
By Max R. Weller

What has happened to critical thinking skills among Americans? Are speeches, photo ops, and perpetual fundraising now considered more important than a POTUS with leadership skills necessary to deal with the serious problems we face in 2013? I’ve got news for you: the Bush/Obama Great Recession is as bad as ever, the Gross Domestic Product actually shrinking during the 4th quarter of 2012 and unemployment continuing to hover near 8%; the Middle East is set to explode, with Israel on its own at this point in dealing with turmoil in Syria and a developing nuclear threat from Iran; North Korea continues to develop a nuclear capability and its leader is crazy as a bedbug; federal entitlement programs like Medicare continue on the road to bankruptcy, because the current administration lacks the political courage to reform them and would rather demonize Republicans; etc.

What’s to love about President Obama? It’s the same ol’, same ol’ stuff and nonsense we’ve been hearing from him since the 2008 campaign. (Yes, he fooled me once back then, but he didn’t fool me again in 2012). Never mind what he says. Look at what the Obama administration has done and at what it has failed to do.

There is no plan, no accountability, and no future so long as this cult of personality continues. It’s beyond ridiculous for any rational person to proclaim, “I seriously LOVE this man. So inspiring . . .” It’s almost scary.

Maybe I’m hopelessly old-fashioned. I LOVE my country, and I demand that politicians work together for the good of the country. I accept neither excuses nor finger-pointing. And I refuse to accept the Obamabot mentality. 2016 can’t come quickly enough to suit me, and it saddens me that our country must continue to suffer for the rest of this man’s second term in office.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/07/2019 at 02:42:30