Obama '08?

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

If we no longer police the oceans we no longer need more than a couple aircraft carriers.

Your ignorance of what aircraft carriers are for is incredible.
They are not acting as the oceans police, they are used to "project" power.

An aircraft carrier can be a deterrent simply by being on scene somewhere.
For example,
if communist China decides to challenge Taiwan, or if they decide to hold war games close to Taiwan, the fact that a US carrier is there to "observe" works to keep things from getting out of hand.

If American interests or allies are threatened, a carrier can be in place within 48 hours, ANYWHERE in the world.
They can evacuate American citizens, they can provide support for ground troops, and they can act as floating hospitals.

Carriers also provide disaster relief.
It was a US carrier that was first on scene after the tsunami hit Thailand, and it provided thousands of meals, thousands of gallons of fresh drinking water, medical care, and other supplies to those affected by the tsunami.

They are also used to support US military actions.
There are 2 carriers in the gulf, providing support for ongoing military operations in Iraq.
There is another carrier providing support for operations in Afghanistan.

So before you decide to eliminate something, you should have some knowledge about what that something actually does.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

we don't have the bucks to do what we want to do. Look at the f-22......what was to be a 750 plane buy now looks to be a 187 plane buy, which everyone admits is not enough to support current defense policy. The 700+ f-15's are in need of retirement, and increasingly having problems, but we will not have planes to replace them with. At some point policy will need to shift into line with capabilities. We will have less because we can afford less, and then we will do less. Call it "right sizing" the military.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

we don't have the bucks to do what we want to do.

Obama has made damn sure of that!

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

The 700+ f-15's are in need of retirement, and increasingly having problems, but we will not have planes to replace them with.

And if you had your way, we wouldnt have the money to replace them either.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

Think of the money we could save if we would just end all security measures currently
used to protect the Obama's, members of the house, senate and their families...

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

I think we need that security because of people like you, Squirt.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
The 700+ f-15's are in need of retirement, and increasingly having problems, but we will not have planes to replace them with.

And if you had your way, we wouldnt have the money to replace them either.

the f22 is, by no stretch of the imagination, a replacement for the f15.

2 Replies

@parados,

Go fu*k yourself you scumbag parasite.

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
The 700+ f-15's are in need of retirement, and increasingly having problems, but we will not have planes to replace them with.

And if you had your way, we wouldnt have the money to replace them either.

the f22 is, by no stretch of the imagination, a replacement for the f15.

So, what plane is slated to replace the aging F15?

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

By John T. Bennett - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Feb 15, 2008 7:09:36 EST

Gordon England, U.S. deputy defense secretary, clashed with Democrats on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee on Wednesday over which fifth-generation fighter the Air Force should purchase to replace aging F-15 strike fighters.

The pointed exchange between the panel’s vice chairman, Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., and England was the latest development this week in a string of comments that spotlights a growing schism between the Bush administration’s Pentagon team and key lawmakers about whether the Air Force should buy more F-22 Raptors or F-35 Lightning IIs to replace worn-out F-15s.

On one side are top Pentagon officials, led by England, who remain soundly opposed to buying more than about 190 F-22s. This group would favor replacing grounded F-15s with F-35s, also known as Joint Strike Fighters, which are expected to have a lower per-plane price tag.

On the other side are lawmakers like Dicks and Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., the subcommittee chairman, who are leaning toward buying more Raptors, mainly because its production line already is humming. U.S. defense behemoth Lockheed Martin makes both warplanes.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/02/defense_fighterdebate_080213/

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
The 700+ f-15's are in need of retirement, and increasingly having problems, but we will not have planes to replace them with.

And if you had your way, we wouldnt have the money to replace them either.

the f22 is, by no stretch of the imagination, a replacement for the f15.

Wrong again dysguy...

Tactical Aircraft: F-15 Replacement Issues (Testimony, 05/05/94, GAO/T-NSIAD-94-176).

The Pentagon plans to replace the F-15 fighter aircraft with the F-22.

0 Replies

The latest fact check on Obama's health plan: http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=7922187

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Duh, it would strengthen the military to eliminate waste and focus the money on only valid programs.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

What about recalling most of our troops stationed in Western Europe at enormous cost? This made some sense before the fall of the Soviet Union. This involves real money, not the piddling amounts to which you refer.

At some future date, we should recall our troops in S. Korea. This would save billions. It is foolish to have them there because we would automatically be drawn into any conflict between the north and the south. Also, there is a strong likelihood that our troops would be quickly wiped out in any conflict. Rumsfeld recommended such withdrawal.

1 Reply

Just think of the money that would have been saved (a couple of trillion) had Bush not lied us into the war with Iraq, and had not stayed in Afghanistan after we eliminated al-Qaeda in that country.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Quote:

What about recalling most of our troops stationed in Western Europe at enormous cost? This made some sense before the fall of the Soviet Union. This involves real money, not the piddling amounts to which you refer.

Europe and Japan pay all costs over and above what US basing would cost. The main problem with the military budget is systems. $10 BILLION will get you 27 f-22's or one aircraft carrier (if you exclude the R/D on the carrier), but then you still need to pay to operate and maintain them. The second major problem is the out of control health care costs which are going up around 20% a year and are now at $45 billion a year, in large part due to war medical costs but also general medical economics problems.

The elephant in the room is that we have something like a $180 billion unfunded liability for stuff that has been eaten up in the wars. NOBODY is even talking about how this stuff will get restocked. If we are going to be ready to fight the next war it will need to be done. We currently have a shortage of certain types of ammo, the stockpiles are wiped out.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Duh, it would strengthen the military to eliminate waste and focus the money on only valid programs.

Now you're talking!
Impeaching Obama would accomplish both of your stated objectives.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate, are you really that stupid?

0 Replies

From another forum:

"The US WILL fight a war against the Chinese in the future. Their system of government requires an external enemy to survive. Everyone places entirely too much worth in the old "they own so much" platitudes. In the 17th Century that was true. However, today, with the monetary system divorced from any actual material value, this is no longer true. The United States has had similar debts lost to them. Nationalization of assets happens quite often throughout the world, and the Chinese are as vulnerable as we are. I'm sure that the USA would scandalize the world by doing so, as their collective memories are as short as a diplomat's morals, but life would go on."

Downsizing and castrating our military while China builds theirs is not a good idea.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

It's funny for you NOT to complain about deficit. Did you say over and over during Bush II that deficit spending was bad?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know