Where are the clowns, bring in the clowns....

[BigRob]

I'm for having enough defense that we can never be invaded and that we could be a help to our allies. We will continue to do that excellently without the F-22.

We are turning to rely on he F-35, which in the latest Pentagon assessment went up against Russian Su-30's (and its variants) and was easily denied access to refueling and therefore had its effectiveness all but eliminated.

And the F-22 technology isn't going to just disappear because we stopped production of additional jets. There are already F-22's... and there will be something we come up with better than the F-22... and then better than that... and that... and that...

I'm fine with building test planes... just not for big military production spending boondoggles.

Well if cost is an issue, the cheapest way to keep this going is to keep it going. Once the line is shut down, it is not going to be restarted, and if it is, it will be far more expensive than the current price tag.

While I agree, we ought to be developing new planes, we do not yet have them in production, and a clear threat for the F-22 is going to be rolling off lines in the coming years, and we are ending the program.

The Bush Recession the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression is not an overnight fix. If you look you'll see economic indicators are starting to rise and as I've said many times let's talk at the end of 2010. That is enough time that the economy will be vastly improved as the stimulous has had time to be fully injected and trickle down through the entire economy. We will be hitting on all cylinders by late 2010.

Economic indicators were going to rise regardless, that is how economies work. You are giving credit to something we have not even spent as a reason for why the economy is turning around. The stimulus has little to do with it.

I see no mass military problem with Russia or China. And they would be the only other possible mass military threats. It won't be that long until we can downsize once again.

Both of these nations are revamping their armed forces to directly fight ours, and we are responding by preparing to fight another Afghanistan. I think that is a mistake.

We could easily have a conflict erupt over Taiwan, or NATO expansion, or gas cut offs to Europe, a nuclear Iran, North Korea. All of these things would bring us in conflict with Russia and China. Perhaps we might not go to war, but we should be prepared for it.

The fact is he will be THE President when they come home. And he campaigned on bringing them home way before Bush ever went along with a time table... in fact President Obama spoke out against invading Iraq in the first place.

Obama demanded that troops come home before the Surge in defeat. Now after Bush followed the hard road and stayed in, I bet Obama is all for taking the credit.

And had it not been for all the heat caused by the Democrats on this issue which politically could easily be seen as an election problem for the Republicans I would tend to absolutely believe Bush would have fought much harder against Maliki to not set a date of withdraw.

The last thing Bush wanted for his Party right before a Presidential election was to be seen in the eyes of the American public as saying... We're staying no matter what you say! His hand was "politically" forced.

I am not sure of this, there was huge pressure to bring them home before the Surge, and instead President Bush followed the Surge plan, against popular opinion.

 

[top gun]

We are turning to rely on he F-35, which in the latest Pentagon assessment went up against Russian Su-30's (and its variants) and was easily denied access to refueling and therefore had its effectiveness all but eliminated.

We will have no problem maintaining air superiority without the F-22 in foreseeable conflict.

Well if cost is an issue, the cheapest way to keep this going is to keep it going. Once the line is shut down, it is not going to be restarted, and if it is, it will be far more expensive than the current price tag.

The point was once made to me... What good is a great deal on an oriental carpet beater if I don't own an oriental carpet?

Simply put the F-22 is not necessary right now and we cannot afford it at this time. By the time we'd have to have it... there will be something even better on the drawing board I assure you.

While I agree, we ought to be developing new planes, we do not yet have them in production, and a clear threat for the F-22 is going to be rolling off lines in the coming years, and we are ending the program.

Trust me... The United States will not lose it's ability to fight and fight to win just because one over price and extremely unreliable weapons program is shelved. The maintenance times on the F-22 is beyond discussting that cost that much.

For that price it should have its own little R2D2 droid to take care of it.

Economic indicators were going to rise regardless, that is how economies work. You are giving credit to something we have not even spent as a reason for why the economy is turning around. The stimulus has little to do with it.

We will have to agree to disagree. I believe that between the confidence going up after Bush was gone and the Stimulus Plan that everyone knows is starting to be pumped in that has stabilized conditions.

We could talk for a hundred years and you'd never convince me that just more Bush policy would have us rebounding at this time.

The cyclical nature of economies is just icing on the cake. I hope it helps President Obama a ton.

Both of these nations are revamping their armed forces to directly fight ours, and we are responding by preparing to fight another Afghanistan. I think that is a mistake.

We could easily have a conflict erupt over Taiwan, or NATO expansion, or gas cut offs to Europe, a nuclear Iran, North Korea. All of these things would bring us in conflict with Russia and China. Perhaps we might not go to war, but we should be prepared for it.

I have no worries whatsoever about going to war with either Russia or China.

And as President Eisenhower said... beware the vast military industrial complex...

Obama demanded that troops come home before the Surge in defeat. Now after Bush followed the hard road and stayed in, I bet Obama is all for taking the credit.

Obama never wanted them going over there on Bush's fandango of misrepresentations (read that lies) in the first place... so he's very consistent.

 

[BigRob]

We will have no problem maintaining air superiority without the F-22 in foreseeable conflict.

According to that particular war game, the F-35 was ineffective in maintaining air superiority in a potential conflict with Russia.

Additionally, the current Chinese military buildup involves a vast array of anti-ship missiles, their own 5th generation fighter, ASAT technology, and a massive quantity of conventional ballistic tipped missiles capable of eliminating our use of forward airbases in the Pacific.

The point was once made to me... What good is a great deal on an oriental carpet beater if I don't own an oriental carpet?

Simply put the F-22 is not necessary right now and we cannot afford it at this time. By the time we'd have to have it... there will be something even better on the drawing board I assure you.

But we do own the carpet.

Further, by the time we have to have it, I would prefer we have something capable of doing the job that is not "on the drawing board."

Trust me... The United States will not lose it's ability to fight and fight to win just because one over price and extremely unreliable weapons program is shelved. The maintenance times on the F-22 is beyond discussting that cost that much.

For that price it should have its own little R2D2 droid to take care of it.

I would not call it unreliable, but I can grant maintenance can be a lot, but it can be that way for any system. While ending the program is not going to mean we are no longer a superpower, I think it does diminish our power, at least in the short term.

I am all for the droid as well.

We will have to agree to disagree. I believe that between the confidence going up after Bush was gone and the Stimulus Plan that everyone knows is starting to be pumped in that has stabilized conditions.

We could talk for a hundred years and you'd never convince me that just more Bush policy would have us rebounding at this time.

The cyclical nature of economies is just icing on the cake. I hope it helps President Obama a ton.

No doubt he will capitalize on it, any good politician would. I am all for the economy going well again.

I have no worries whatsoever about going to war with either Russia or China.

Yes it is not likely at present, but I would say we do not have the luxury of assuming it will never come. I would say we need to constantly stay one step ahead of them or the situation becomes more likely that a crisis could erupt.

And as President Eisenhower said... beware the vast military industrial complex...

Obama never wanted them going over there on Bush's fandango of misrepresentations (read that lies) in the first place... so he's very consistent.

I still would make the argument that the benefits from going could easily outweigh the costs.

 

[PLC1]

Call me stupid, but I believe there are more important national interests at stake here than elections.

Not if you are trying to gain or hold on to power in Washington, there aren't. Call me cynical if you want, but it looks to me as if winning elections is the number one priority there, regardless of the best interests of the rest of us.

I agree, look at their actions.

That's where we need to be looking, no question.

This just sounds like an argument between passive and active foreign policy.

No, it's an argument between protecting ourselves as a nation, and trying to impose a Pax Americana on the rest of the world.

So do you support the elimination of our nuclear arsenal as long as we maintain a string conventional force?

The downsides of that plan are vast. Further, we have huge power as it is, and people continue to "mess" with us on a daily basis.

As much as I'd like to see nuclear weapons be a thing of the past, unilateral disarmament is not the way to go, no.

I don't believe I have suggested such a thing.

I might have suggested that we won the cold war 18 years ago, and it's time to stop fighting it.

 

[BigRob]

Not if you are trying to gain or hold on to power in Washington, there aren't. Call me cynical if you want, but it looks to me as if winning elections is the number one priority there, regardless of the best interests of the rest of us.

Maybe, I think it can vary by situation.

No, it's an argument between protecting ourselves as a nation, and trying to impose a Pax Americana on the rest of the world.

Protecting American interests abroad is protecting ourselves as a nation in my opinion.

As much as I'd like to see nuclear weapons be a thing of the past, unilateral disarmament is not the way to go, no.

I don't believe I have suggested such a thing.

I might have suggested that we won the cold war 18 years ago, and it's time to stop fighting it.

You did not suggest such a thing, I was simply asking.

I agree the Cold War is over, however I still believe that the threats we face in its aftermath are no less serious and need to be addressed.

 

[PLC1]

Maybe, I think it can vary by situation.



Protecting American interests abroad is protecting ourselves as a nation in my opinion.



You did not suggest such a thing, I was simply asking.

I agree the Cold War is over, however I still believe that the threats we face in its aftermath are no less serious and need to be addressed.

The threats that we face are serious, but are quite different from what we had during the well named MAD time. Mostly, our threats come from the Islamic extremists and their hatred of anything not Muslim and extreme, which, of course, includes that great Satan and infidel nation that supports the little Satan of Israel. A huge and expensive nuclear weapons inventory is not going to do much to fight such a threat.

 

[BigRob]

The threats that we face are serious, but are quite different from what we had during the well named MAD time. Mostly, our threats come from the Islamic extremists and their hatred of anything not Muslim and extreme, which, of course, includes that great Satan and infidel nation that supports the little Satan of Israel. A huge and expensive nuclear weapons inventory is not going to do much to fight such a threat.

Well, I disagree that what you describe is the main threat we are facing. Further, I do not claim we need a "huge and expensive" nuclear weapons arsenal, I claim that we need a credible, reliable, and survivable arsenal.

 

[PLC1]

Well, I disagree that what you describe is the main threat we are facing. Further, I do not claim we need a "huge and expensive" nuclear weapons arsenal, I claim that we need a credible, reliable, and survivable arsenal.

On that we agree. I'm not sure whether we agree on the definition of a credible, reliable, and survivable arsenal or not, but it does have to be enough to make any enemy think twice before attacking us.