Posted on 01/13/2013 7:42:23 PM PST by ducttape45
And what is the per plane cost of the F35 now? The F35 project is like NASAs’ Webb space telescope. “The telescope that ate astronomy.” Well the F35 is the (poorly designed) fighter that ate the air force. Shutting down production of the twin engine world class F22 so as to fund the piss poor single engine F35 was a brilliant idea. /s.
And you probably won't be thinking it was bloated when the nuclear missiles start falling because the military was weakened to a point where it wasn't able to function.
Egads dude, can you warn a brother first before posting pictures like that? Had to run my eyes under the faucet for 30 minutes to get rid of the image seared into my corneas.
Have him prepare for Plan B, C and D if he has the ability to do so.
I’m thinking the same thing. Someone called cherry really got my goat a few posts back. I wonder if it’s a liberal troll out to cause dissension in the ranks.
“Where’s all the money going?”
LOL good one.
“China has no incentive to go to war with such a large trading partner. Capitalism brings peace.”
There’s a somewhat famous book that made exactly that argument. It was published around 1914, when Germany was Britain’s largest trading partner. For the historically challenged that means on the eve of an immensely destructive world war that pitted the two trading partners against each other.
And for other slow learners to chew on, the United States managed to embroil itself into an equally destructive civil war despite the existence of the libertarian’s favorite idol, capitalism.
It’s fascinating how libertarians and marxists both view the world through a lens of economic reductionism. Flip sides of a shallow world view that can’t account for world events that aren’t economic, Islam being a current example.
“Attack from whom? Even defunded, no military on Earth is a match for ours. Terrorists? What good did our aircraft carriers and stealth bombers do on the morning of 9/11?”
You are a fool of the highest magnitude if you think “terrorist” are the only threat to this country. China is preparing to attack us in the next 10-20 years. We must stay prepared for that and a resurgent Russia.
As we have seen over the last 50 years via 'asymmetrical wars' we have fought, we can and have been beaten. Today, one or two EMP pulse weapons fired from a damn container ship 100 miles off our coast can send us back to the stone age.
Don't ever think that no one will attack us if they see the opportunity. There are many willing, and increasingly able to do so.
Don't kid yourself that high-tech airplanes and big nuclear powered carriers can protect us from the threats we currently face. Those weapons would be good for projecting force against the threats we faced 20 or 30 years ago. But they are not defensive weapons adequate for the current and future threats we face in an asymetric terrorist war which is the age we live in.
It is nice to be able to project force anywhere and anytime you need to. But it is far better to be able to protect the homeland and if necessary, allow the rest of the world to take care of it's own problems.
I think it is time we retired from the 'world's policeman' job and take better care of our own security and interests.
Ww1sprang out of secret pacts and alliances, free trade between nations was becoming unpopular among the special interests and protectionist policies were on the rise. This doesn’t change that, ceteris paribus, economic interdependence disincentivises nations from attacking each other.
“It is nice to be able to project force anywhere and anytime you need to. But it is far better to be able to protect the homeland and if necessary, allow the rest of the world to take care of it’s own problems.”
You are spouting isolationist bullshite like that which set us up for Pearl Harbor. Not on my watch!
I'm not calling for isolationism. I am saying have US troops exposed in the number of countries we have them in today is not a wise course.
And in point of fact, the Japanese did not attack Pearl Harbor because we were isolationist. Just the opposite was true. It was the fact that we were diplomatically, economically, and some extent in China, even militarily frustrating their designs on East Asia while ignoring the protection of our own territory.
“And in point of fact, the Japanese did not attack Pearl Harbor because we were isolationist. Just the opposite was true. It was the fact that we were diplomatically, economically, and some extent in China, even militarily frustrating their designs on East Asia while ignoring the protection of our own territory.”
No, we were ISOLATIONIST (our people - like you - not the POTUS). FDR was mainly focused on Europe and underestimated Japan.
You ARE isolationist. We MUST project US military power abroad in order to protect our homeland. We cannot hide behind our borders and hope we won’t be attacked...nothing can stop the “asymetric warfare” you so fear except to strike its bases overseas. Actually, we should be more agressively helping the French in Mali since it has become a Al Queda country.
I DO NOT like having to send our troops in harm’s way in any place. Both Iraq and Afghanistan have been failures...not because the premise of action there was wrong. What is wrong is our ROEs for dealing with the enemy. Plus, we should NEVER EVER leave an Islamist based government in areas we have conquered...yes we conquered them...not liberated (I believe in truth in advertizing).
Whatever, China has the same designs on the Pacific that Japan did. China is building a “blue water” navy to go toe to toe or better with us...we have to meet and exceed that challenge. Also, the Russians are coming back to life. If Putin is any indication of the future leaders of that country (and considering what they did in Georgia), we had better keep our conventional capabilities at a high level.
IF you want to maintain an isolationist position, please join Ron Paul in retirement and leave the defense of the country to those that know better.
France has many interests in Mali, very valuable interests worth billions. We don't!
Let the French handle it as they may. Don't criticize them if they get a little heavy handed. If we can slip them some intel or some equipment, that's great. But we don't need to turn the US Marine Corps into a adjunct of the French Foreign Legion.
We just can't afford anymore of this world policeman crap. It's time for others to step up and as long as we keep jumping in, they sure as hell won't.
Frankly, I'm far more concerned about what's happening in Mexico than I am of Mali. Even though we are big and strong, it does not take long to get spread thin, especially when we already have $16 trillion outstanding on our credit card.
Call me an Isolationist if you want, and I think Ron Paul is a Libertarian ideologue pretty much detached from reality.
I just consider myself a realist, and realistically, we can't be everywhere doing everything. We must pick and choose our fights.
I choose not to pick some Sahara wasteland for our next fight. It eats up scarce resources for zero benefit tactically or strategically, and I am convinced we need those resources closer to home and on more immanent concerns. .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.