backtop


Print 118 comment(s) - last by Penti.. on Jul 11 at 8:05 PM


  (Source: Lockheed Martin)
Advancing enemy systems may mean F-35 isn't the best aircraft for the job

Over a decade ago when aircraft designers first sat down to design the F-35 Lightning II, the needs that were envisioned for the future were designed into the aircraft. Now that the program has aged, some believe that the needs of the modern battlefield may be better served by other aircraft and equipment.

The F-35 program has been plagued with delays and cost overruns. The DOD has stated that the total cost of the F-35 program could stretch into the $382 billion range. Despite the delays, the F-35 program has met some significant milestones over the last few months. One of these milestones was the F-35B variant designed for STOVL operations breaking the sound barrier for the first time.

The future of the F-35 program is still murky with 
Defense News reporting that some in the Obama administration believe that the military needs to reconsider its massive 2,500 unit F-35 fleet plans. The reason, according to the officials, is that the potential enemies to the U.S. like China have developed much more advanced and sophisticated radar and missile systems. These more sophisticated systems may mean that the F-35 is less valuable in a combat situation that it was originally intended to be and the huge amount of money to be spent on the project may be better spent on other aircraft and equipment.

Exactly what to do with the F-35 program is being closely studied as part of two internal Pentagon studies. One study is looking at the global posture of the military as a whole and the other is looking at how the military will be able to best conduct long-range strikes.

The issue of the cost of the F-35 program is also being closely considered. A study by CSBA's Todd Harrison notes that the budget set by the Pentagon for 2011 "does little to control rising personnel costs for both DoD civilians and military personnel."

The study notes that new benefits for healthcare for current and retired military personnel are increasing above the rate of inflation and to reduce the national deficit the Pentagon may be forced to choose to fund healthcare for military personnel or invest in new equipment such as the F-35.

Harrison wrote, "It can also be viewed as an intergenerational question-a choice between funding pay and benefits for today's military (and retirees) or funding the equipment and training needed for those who will fight tomorrow's wars. The fiscal reality is that in a flat or declining budgetary environment, the Department will not be able to fund both to the same extent that it does today."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

We NEED This Plane
By azcoyote on 6/30/2010 12:36:36 PM , Rating: 5
We NEED This Plane, not just for combat operations but as a deterrent for our foes. The quality and quantity of our airforce is a major factor in keeping our foes at bay.

Wish people would have some insight here and stop thinking of just money...




RE: We NEED This Plane
By Daniel8uk on 6/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: We NEED This Plane
By CptTripps on 6/30/2010 1:50:33 PM , Rating: 2
If your going to state things as fact, back it up. Not saying you are lying (seems more like alot of guesswork) but how about some sources.


RE: We NEED This Plane
By Reclaimer77 on 6/30/2010 2:38:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I actually think your government need worry more about the trillion dollar debts rather than a new toy for the air force.


Oh the current fascists in our government are VERY worried about it. They are worrying about how they can increase it as much as possible.


RE: We NEED This Plane
By Iaiken on 6/30/2010 5:16:24 PM , Rating: 1
Reclaimer... do you even know what a fascist government is?

GOP ultra-nationalists have more in common with fascists than the current administration ever will.


RE: We NEED This Plane
By Reclaimer77 on 6/30/2010 5:30:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Reclaimer... do you even know what a fascist government is?


One that would throw me in jail if I don't buy their Health Care? One that takes over companies, screws over the stockholders, and calls it a bailout? One who passes reforms, in the middle of the night I might add, which says the government has the power over CEO's bonuses and pay structure?

Yeah I think I have some idea what a fascist government is. We're seeing examples of it on a daily basis now.

Fascism: a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)


RE: We NEED This Plane
By knutjb on 6/30/2010 6:20:36 PM , Rating: 1
It appears you don't know what fascism is: (from answers.com)
n.
often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Fascism has much to do with the style of government. Just because one is nationalistic does not make them a fascist. Overbearing government control through overly stringent regulation, like what is going on in DC today, i.e. banks, GM/Chrysler, Wall Street, no offshore Oil drilling, net neutrality, Fairness Doctrine, and loop holes in the stimulus law as a payback to Unions and Acorn to name a few.

The aforementioned as a whole shares a lot in common with Fascism. The GOP however, does not. Do a little history...


RE: We NEED This Plane
By Iaiken on 7/1/2010 2:06:00 AM , Rating: 1
So... neither of you know what fascism is...

Fascism is a far right totalitarian form of government requiring:

- Strong centralized leadership
- Singular national and ethnic identity.
- The will to commit violence to put down opposition
- Rejection of individual culture
- Creation of a single party state

It is also one of the strongest opposing ideals to liberalism and other forms of socialism.

Fascists reject the rights of the individual under the premise that individual rights and diversity lead to class divisions that are harmful to the idea of a singular nationality. They also believe that that members of anything other than the military class are incapable of governance. Fascist governments require the military class to control the means of production through government corporation to meet the needs of the nation as prescribed by the government (formed from military commanders).

Liberals, on the other hand, espouse liberty and equality for all. This encourages individualism and diversity, but because people are imperfect it also creates an environment where social divisions, along class, race, religious and other lines can flourish.

As for your turning a blind eye to some of the most common tactics of the GoP and fascists alike. Their use of fear, anger, and it's espousal of white american christian nationalism in the face of a brown middle eastern muslim threat. The republican agenda has been to encourage racism and xenophobia in the general populous.

Instead of offering contrasting solutions and dialog, the conservatives simply offer opposition without consideration.
There could be no greater victory for the republicans than for the left to fail and for America to fall into a deep and lengthy depression.

The GoP has also demonstrated it's willingness to engage in unnecessary violence (Iraqi Invasion) and tell whatever big the big lies they needed (WMD's, Al Qaeda, etc) to in order to get what they wanted (war in Iraq). They changed and revised their story with almost every single telling from before the start of the Iraq war to the very end.

No sir, I think you need to do not only some reading on what Fascism is, but how it contrasts to liberalism and complements conservatism.


F-35 vs F-22
By Azsen on 7/1/2010 2:25:43 AM , Rating: 2
People need to stop comparing the F-35 to the F-22. Sure the F-22 might be a better fighter in every way but the F-35 can do one thing it can not. That is, land on an aircraft carrier.

You can't wage a war with a country without sending a fleet of aircraft carriers into the region to put the jets within striking distance. You could only use F-22s to attack a country or provide air support if you:
a) setup some kind of path to the country with multiple refueling tankers on the route so they can travel the full distance.
b) have secured some land nearby to the country to use as an airbase for refueling and rearming.

The F-22s can't just fly round the world, launch an attack and fly back, you need to think about the logistics of it. At the moment all they're doing is defending American airspace because it's too much of a mission to send them anywhere. They haven't been used in a war probably for this very reason.

If there was a real war they'd have to send in a few carrier groups to the region first, bombard the air defenses with cruise missiles, then bomb the buildings with the F-35s. Maybe then they'll have secured some land to use as an airbase, then they could potentially fly in the F-22s for air superiority if they could find some non-hostile airspace to fly through from America.

The logistics of waging a war with the F-22 isn't exactly easy. That's why there's the need of a new carrier jet to replace the F-18s and if it doesn't perform quite as well as an F-22 then there's probably not much they can do about it at the moment. Maybe they could try making a smaller version of the F-22 to make a carrier takeoff and landing.




RE: F-35 vs F-22
By bigdawg1988 on 7/1/2010 11:25:28 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't they send the B-2s or even B-52s first? The F22 and F-35 are more of a tactical bomber. I think we'd soften up the defenses with the big boys first, then send the little ones to pick off the easier (and more numerous) targets. We'd have time to get the tankers in the battle.
Unless they are already in theater it takes carriers longer to arrive than tankers.


RE: F-35 vs F-22
By Azsen on 7/2/2010 12:34:22 AM , Rating: 2
B-2s definitely as they are stealth and could sneak in, but they just do carpet bombing, MOAB or nuclear ordinates, I don't think they are as effective for taking out smaller targets that are spread out like ground air defenses. B-52s would be interesting but susceptible to air defense. I certainly wouldn't want to be flying in a B-52 to perform the initial bombing as the enemy would likely have some fighter jets to counter it.

You're still going to need some land in the enemy/nearby territory to get the F-22s in the action though. They can't fly around 24/7. Which makes the F-35 much more valuable as they can just fly back to the carrier.


RE: F-35 vs F-22
By 91TTZ on 7/2/2010 10:40:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe they could try making a smaller version of the F-22 to make a carrier takeoff and landing.


Aircraft larger than the F-22 have landed on aicraft carriers. It's not its size that's the problem, the aircraft structure and landing gear would need to be strengthened, which would require a bit of a redesign since it would add a lot of weight.


This has been known for a while
By Cullinaire on 6/30/2010 8:30:52 PM , Rating: 3
It's been painfully clear since 2005: The J-10 (and the MiG-29 and F-18) vastly outclass the F-35.
Thanks DICE for trying to tell us this fact all along.




Nazis!!!
By robadawb on 6/30/2010 11:31:31 AM , Rating: 1
Just doing my part to help further this discussions downward spiral.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law




F-22 Raptor
By deeznuts on 6/30/2010 2:25:21 PM , Rating: 1
The decision in Eliminating that F-22 program because of costs looks better and better every day ...

(yes I know we still have 187 while the original plan was 250 ...)




Duh...
By AEvangel on 6/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Duh...
By Murloc on 6/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Duh...
By AEvangel on 6/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Duh...
By Regected on 6/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Duh...
By vazili on 6/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: Duh...
By quiksilvr on 6/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Duh...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/30/2010 12:17:15 PM , Rating: 3
Because in our next major conflict we will most likely be going up against a modern or semi-modern country that actually has air power. The last thing we need to do is fly obsolete aircraft at modern anti-aircraft systems. This isn't WW2, we can't bring aircraft from the drawing boards and into the front lines in 18 months or less. If we stick with the current plan, we will have sufficient quantities of F-35's and F-22's for the next war. If we don't then we risk a higher casualty count and less effective air dominance, which limits our ground forces ability to call in support when they need it.

For those of you with such short sight, keep in mind our next likely wars will be faught against countries with standing armies far outnumbering our own. Air dominance is a must to not get our asses kicked.


RE: Duh...
By StevoLincolnite on 6/30/2010 1:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For those of you with such short sight, keep in mind our next likely wars will be faught against countries with standing armies far outnumbering our own. Air dominance is a must to not get our asses kicked.


You are also allied with allot of nations which will probably assist in times of war and need. (For instance England, Australia, Canada etc').

So any likely future wars, just like the Middle East will probably not be just the Americans.
So taking into account those nations military powers combined with your own would probably show that no nation on Earth is actually capable of standing up to that, even with the current technologies being used. (The USA has over 100 allies in total, allot of smaller countries in that number however.)


RE: Duh...
By MrBlastman on 6/30/2010 1:13:04 PM , Rating: 5
If you want something done right, sometimes, you have to be able to do it on your own. When it comes time to fight or war, you can never count on your allies so you better be able to defend yourself. :)


RE: Duh...
By Noya on 6/30/2010 5:34:11 PM , Rating: 1
True, but those Eurofighter Typhoons are pretty sick for straight air-to-air. Better than anything we currently deploy (aside from the F-22).


RE: Duh...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/30/2010 5:54:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Better than anything we currently deploy (aside from the F-22).


That's a lie, and an impossible to quantify statement as well. The Typhoon has strengths and weaknesses, that depends on where the engagement were to take place. Foremost being it's terrible operating range, even with external tanks.

I think Europe buys more F series American fighters than they produce Typhoons. I mean.. if you don't eat at your own diner, I think that's saying something.

At BEST, and I mean BEST, the Eurofighter is comparable to the F-18. But better than anything besides an F-22? Hardly.


RE: Duh...
By Noya on 6/30/2010 7:41:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
At BEST, and I mean BEST, the Eurofighter is comparable to the F-18. But better than anything besides an F-22? Hardly.


Are you kidding me? The Superhornet is a dog in air combat. It's a redesign of the F-18 which was a redesign of the YF-17 dating back to 1974 when it lost to the YF-16 in the Lightweight Fighter Competition. Google Mig-29 vs F-18 and watch where US F-18's train against old East German Mig-29's and have zero advantage against the Migs. In strictly dogfight (no AESA use)situations the F-16 is better than anything besides the F-22 in the current US arsenal.

The only thing that the F-18E/F-15 have over the currently fielded Tranche 2 Typhoon is their AESA radar, and not all of them are equipped with them yet. They don't even have IRST added to the airframe, they have to use external pods.


RE: Duh...
By gamerk2 on 7/1/2010 8:25:54 AM , Rating: 3
My concern is performance: The F-35 isn't a good as other planes in air to air (F-22, F-18E, F-15 [latest varients]), and isn't as good as other planes in air-to-ground (A-10).

If I were running the show, I'd just reopen the F-15 and F-18 production lines and do another update to the ECM package.


RE: Duh...
By Jeffk464 on 7/1/2010 12:54:27 AM , Rating: 1
We counted on them to win the past two world wars. The fact it China is to big for anyone to take on by themselves. Providing they develop an air force that is. Currently I don't think their Air Force is all that threatening.


RE: Duh...
By StevoLincolnite on 7/1/2010 1:36:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We counted on them to win the past two world wars. The fact it China is to big for anyone to take on by themselves. Providing they develop an air force that is. Currently I don't think their Air Force is all that threatening.


Well, Europe did control a large portion of the planet at one stage, so I can see why.

However, China taking on the "Allies" would result in them getting pretty much owned, all the Naval, Air and Ground forces combined would simply be to much.


RE: Duh...
By gamerk2 on 7/1/2010 8:28:52 AM , Rating: 2
To be fair, theres a reason why China is allying with India (50% of the planets population right there). And the J-10/J-11 should at least be a match for current level fighters, nevermind that India is partnered with Russia on its next-gen fighter program...

China is more focused on defense right now then anything though; hence why their navy is very underfunded and undersized.


RE: Duh...
By CharonPDX on 6/30/2010 7:37:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because in our next major conflict we will most likely be going up against a modern or semi-modern country that actually has air power.


That's exactly what the saying was at the end of the first Gulf War, as the Soviet Union was collapsing. "Yeah, we didn't face a real air force in Iraq, but next time we will.

Then we fought in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Yes, it is very possible that someday we may fight a modern enemy. But just as likely, the world is done with major state-to-state wars. The only countries I can see us even potentially going to war with are small nations (N. Korea, Iran, etc.) While they may have modern air forces, they will *NOT* be a serious threat to even our current air power. Sheer force of numbers is on our side there.

China would not attack the U.S. Russia would not attack the U.S. We would not proactively attack either. The closest chance of direct conflict with a major nation would be with China over Taiwan. And the U.S. would not commit to full-scale war over Taiwan. We'd send a few carrier groups, and if China showed they weren't willing to back down, we would. Because the only other option is nuclear.


RE: Duh...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/30/2010 9:28:51 PM , Rating: 2
I think you may be very surprised at how quickly a war with China could happen, especially if the US and N.Korea go at it. There is a good chance China would step in and support the North. To what extent that support would be is anyone's guess, but SAM and Supplies are probably a given.


RE: Duh...
By Captain Orgazmo on 7/1/2010 3:53:45 AM , Rating: 1
For the past decade China has been steadily reforming its military from a giant, low tech, defensive people's army into a smaller, high tech, nimble, professional combined armed forces capable of power projection, modeled after the US military. As well it is focusing on limited asymmetric unconventional warfare planning for what it sees as an inevitable conflict with the USA.

Recommended reading: "Showdown: Why China wants war with the United States" by Jed Babbin and Edward Timperlake.


RE: Duh...
By roadhog1974 on 7/1/2010 8:26:51 PM , Rating: 2
Not good business to declare war on a major customer.

It is very unlikely major powers will go head to head again.
Wars by proxy will be what happens in the future.


RE: Duh...
By bigdawg1988 on 7/1/2010 11:50:12 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, sorry, didn't mean to copy you there.


RE: Duh...
By bigdawg1988 on 7/1/2010 11:48:06 PM , Rating: 2
You mean like the last time we fought North Korea? China would be smart to send some weapons and probably some pilots to North Korea, but there is no way they would fight us for that speck of country. And we wouldn't commit that much to fighting North Korea either, we'd just send arms and maybe provide air support.
It'd be more of a proxy war, just like back in the cold war days. Almost like robot wars, but with live robots. (Ugh, that was bad....)


RE: Duh...
By bugnguts on 6/30/2010 10:55:01 PM , Rating: 3
-The Reaper, essential the next generation UAV after the predator, took 20 months from drawing boards to actual craft in the Air Force's hands this was prior to 9/11 and as such was developed during peacetime so this design period can be rushed as were the planes during WWII.
More pilots died in WWII during training then on the fronts.
The tech in the F22 is now over 15 years old.
These >$100,000,000/craft are 10-20 times as expensive as Predators/Reapers with the accompanying remote controlling outpost.

Want the newest tech; composites, radar, tracking, communication, stealth both radar and heat signature and computational power to put it all together than UAVs hold the answer. I loved the F22 from when I first saw concept art of it in my dad's office who was part of the team who tested the F22's Pratt and Whitney engines, but when all is said and done for the good or bad UAVs are here to stay and the dominance of manned military jets is over.


RE: Duh...
By JediJeb on 7/1/2010 10:58:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
For those of you with such short sight, keep in mind our next likely wars will be faught against countries with standing armies far outnumbering our own. Air dominance is a must to not get our asses kicked.


Exactly. And those today who are opposed to us keeping our Air Force up to date would be the first ones crying out when we are defeated and occupied by some other country and they take away their current standard of living and force them to work for little or nothing. Anyone who believes the world will ever live in peace and harmony is living in a fantasy. Until every one in the world is willing to completely give up their culture and way of life for something totally different to what they know, world wide harmony will never exist.


RE: Duh...
By bigdawg1988 on 7/1/2010 11:42:52 PM , Rating: 3
I wanna know who this great enemy of ours is? China and Russia only have defensive forces, unless you count those Bear bombers they fly over once in a while.
We're over-building our military using 90's tech while everybody else can wait around for about 10-20 years then build up. We'll be too broke by then to catch up. i prefer to keep researching, but not building for awhile. It's not like some other country can suddenly flip a switch and spit out a hundred bombers or a dozen aircraft carriers.
And I don't care if everyone in southeast Asia has a rifle, they can't hit us from across the ocean.
The Pacific Ocean... the greatest, cheapest defensive system ever! Only second to the Atlantic Ocean in value. :)

In my opinion, economics will be the next great battlefield, and wasting money isn't going to help us any.


RE: Duh...
By xler8r on 6/30/2010 10:38:57 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah.... This thing wasn't built to do any specific thing very well but rather a multitude half way decently.
Is there something between epic win and epic fail? I think this can meet that category... haha.


RE: Duh...
By amanojaku on 6/30/2010 10:59:40 AM , Rating: 2
People either forget, or don't care, that these were originally support planes for the F-22, and when the F-22 was canceled they were thrust into a role they were never meant to fulfill. Additionally, these planes are sold to foreign countries, while the F-22 is not for sale. Had the relatively low program and unit costs stayed the same the sales would have made the US serious profits. As it stands both Lockheed Martin and the US government (Bush and Obama administrations) are to blame for this mess. Mismanagement, lack of funding... There was a lot of potential in the F-35; now it's best use would be a research plane for the 6th generation fighter.


RE: Duh...
By ot56 on 6/30/2010 2:22:59 PM , Rating: 2
6th generation fighter will not be manned

6th generation (and subsequent) fighters will probably not meet the 18 month development cycles of WWII but will be far shorter lifecyslces than today. This is both due to the acceleration of electronic technologies (sensors, etc) and the fact that no man rating safety will be required.

6th generation (and subsequent) fighters will RAPIDLY outclass all manned fighters (think constant 360 degree awareness, g-force tollerance and reaction time)

post 6th generation fighters will no longer require stealth as we know it since passive optical sensors will change the definition of observability).

So, in case you havent guessed, I kind of think the F-35 is a waste.


RE: Duh...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/30/2010 2:48:31 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
6th generation fighter will not be manned


Bullshit.


RE: Duh...
By ekv on 6/30/2010 10:37:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I kind of think the F-35 is a waste.
I think the F-35 has a role to play, but there is a sense of F-111 about it. The F-111 was basically useless till it became the 'spark vark'. I'm not saying that IS the case here, but there is a "sense" of that.

quote:
6th generation fighter will not be manned
I don't think so. There really is no substitute for having a pair of eyes on station (and a sentient decision-making person in the loop).

Having said that, you raise some interesting thoughts. Yes, a UCAV would not suffer limitations to its flight profile that a manned aircraft has. Yes, the development cycle could bog down horribly -- it'd be bad if certain fail-safes are not provable, and provably correct software is insanely difficult [especially if the project is a couple million lines of code].

There could be a compromise where a UCAV (or 3) is wirelessly tethered to a fighter. The UCAV's could then be tasked based on the fighter pilots real-time operational/mission requirements and threat assessment. Etc.

UCAV's [robots] also carry risk. Jam the comm link. Spoof the comm link, attack friendly troops. And so on.

As I write it is still Sci-Fi. The U.S. also faces massive debt and Obama has admitted to being a muslim [recently while in Egypt], which if true, you would have to admit presents certain difficulties in sustaining development of a 6th gen fighter. To say the least.


RE: Duh...
By bigdawg1988 on 7/2/2010 12:01:49 AM , Rating: 2
OMG! Obama a Muslim? Man, put the damn pipe down!
I've heard crazy stuff before, but this is getting ridiculous. So he's the worlds first fascist Muslim now?
Pitiful, pitiful....


RE: Duh...
By CharonPDX on 6/30/2010 7:44:42 PM , Rating: 2
No, they weren't "support" planes, they were "complimentary" planes.

Back when ATF and JSF programs were created, ATF was a pure air superiority (or "air dominance" as the Air Force liked to phrase it,) fighter, and JSF was a fighter/bomber. The ATF was to replace the F-15A-D, the original F-16, and possibly F-14A, the JSF was to replace the F-15E, F-16 "strike" variant, the F/A-18, A-6, and A-10.

ATF was "air-to-air", JSF was "air-to-ground with good air-to-air performance as an extra". The idea was that ATF would clear the skies of enemy fighters, JSF would come in and pound targeted ground assets, while still being able to keep itself safe from remaining air threats. As a tertiary benefit, we brought in the UK to help spread the cost. Later, more international partners were added.

F-22 hasn't been "cancelled", either. We just decided to not make as many as originally forecast. The F-22 also got light ground-attack added to its portfolio.


RE: Duh...
By 91TTZ on 7/2/2010 10:52:08 AM , Rating: 2
We've usually had a hi/low strategy regarding fighters. There's a limited number of high quality fighters and then a large number of smaller, less expensive fighters.

Examples:

Hi: F4 Phantom
Low: A4 Skyhawk

Hi: F-15 Eagle
Low: F-16 Falcon

Hi: F-22 Raptor
Low: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter


RE: Duh...
By MrBlastman on 6/30/2010 10:46:51 AM , Rating: 4
How naive of you. You really think that we will be facing third-world, middle eastern maniacs forever (okay, don't answer that, I don't think they'll ever go away), but, at the same time think that we won't ever face a more powerful adversary?

Did you not read the news yesterday? The Cold War is still alive, VERY alive. Eleven Russian spies were busted that were planted within our own society in America. One of them was pretty hot I might add--something about sexy women being a spy... that's another discussion though. ;)

My point is, we can't just accept that because we are fighting savages who have no body armor, use AK-47's and RPG's, that we won't eventually face first line equipment like the Russians or Chinese. The fact is, we very well may and we have to be prepared for it. Aircraft technology takes quite a bit longer to refine and develop nowadays due to the complexity of it all.

Oh, and we DO provide body armor and vehicles, but, I suppose you've been too busy listening to spin to see that our men and women have been getting what they need. The body armor has always been there, only the troops in the line of fire were getting it, as those on base didn't need it. The vehicles we've deployed are amazingly simple but effective and do their jobs quite well.

As for the F-35... It replaces the F-16 and the F-18, both which are aging--especially the F-16. I'm all for us just using F-22's to do everything but you have to consider the F-35 is a single-engine weapons delivery platform thus making it far more efficient on fuel usage. You can't use twin-engine aircraft for everything. If you could, the Air Force would have nothing but F-15 D/E's doing all their ground support missions, but they aren't. They have a huge number of F-16's because they do the job very well and save on costs.

The F-35... it is unproven. The only true measure of whether it is worth the money or not is the total body count it can produce relative to its own losses. If it has a pretty high ratio, it is good enough for me. This is why we have F-15's flying BARCAP or CAP missions while the F-16's fly SEAD, CAS, etc. I have yet to see, in all history, one plane do everything effectively on its own (or one weapon for that matter).


RE: Duh...
By AEvangel on 6/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Duh...
By MrBlastman on 6/30/2010 11:30:27 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Cold War supposedly ended that we discovered that Russia had some of the most inferior technology on the planet compared to ours.


What? Sorry, I think you are mistaken here to confidently believe Russian military technology was _that_ inferior to our own. It wasn't, and is not. There are quite a few brilliant scientists working on Russian military tech, actually.

We've had this argument before but I'll say it again, Russian air-to-air missile technology has been superior to ours in ways for quite some time, their SU-27 will give our F-15 a run for the money in BVR engagements, up close it is a little different, the Mig 29, on the other hand, can out-turn our F-15 up close despite its arguably different avionics. Their Mi-28 Helocopter we know very little to nothing about but likely could be a challenger to our Apache. Putin has it in for America, he's old-line KGB and would love nothing more than to see America fall.

This bothers me the most though...

quote:
I mean seriously no nation since Mexico in 1846 as made any serious attempt to invade the United States, so lets stop blowing smoke up are arses with the idea that spending billions on aircraft like this makes us safer.


That is pure ignorance right there. It is the kind of thinking that lead to Japan attacking Pearl Harbor and Hitler being allowed to rise in power. You can't ignore what is going on in the world. We can't also save the whole world. But, to dismiss any notion of being threatened, to disarm ourselves and try to live a true merchant society without any means to defend ourselves is just a disaster waiting to happen.

There is a great deal of contempt for us around the world because of our way of life. We need some way to defend it should someone try and take it away from us. It is better to "be prepared" than to not be at all.


RE: Duh...
By Daniel8uk on 6/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Duh...
By amanojaku on 6/30/2010 12:09:52 PM , Rating: 3
You couldn't be any more wrong. The world is essentially controlled by the UN, where ALL countries have an opportunity to influence each other. Some countries aren't invited because of clear-cut human rights violations, others choose not to join. The US has been seen as a leader among the UN members because of its history of economic, political, and social success, and even more so because it's a young country doing right where old countries haven't figured it out yet. Every other country has slowly adopted many US customs by choice, but the US is not capable of pushing the rest of the world around by force.

The UN told Iran, and other countries, like North Korea, that in an effort to keep global peace it must cease dangerous weapons activities. Iran's nuclear stockpiles look suspiciously like weapons and not fuel. The US has not actively created nuclear weapons since the 60's, and has slowly been destroying its stockpiles (you just can't blow them up.) Some countries want to CREATE nuclear weapons, where the UN clearly has an agreement banning them. There's also the concern that countries looking to create nuclear power, but with poor security, could have their nuclear fuel stolen by terrorists.


RE: Duh...
By MrBlastman on 6/30/2010 12:21:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
They tell Iran they CANNOT have any nuclear technologies because it will cause chaos in the middle east, supposedly anyway, yet Iran, as far as I can remember has never been aggressive towards any country for decades.


We don't want Iran having nuclear technology because they are a known supporter of anti-semitic and anti-christian radical groups. Iran's extremist leadership is about as radical as it gets and they throw their nasty, Church-driven government onto their people imposing such harsh customs such as sharia law on them. Iran is hardly a shining example of how a country should be.

Separation of Church and State is key for any first world country. Iran lets their Church meddle in their government affairs and this is what makes them able to have nuclear capabilities dangerous. Of course, there is no point in trying to convince me of this. It will probably take a bomb being set off in London for you to change your mind, and, then again, as history has shown, it just may not.

The Muslims, particularly the extremists, want us all dead, no matter our church, creed or color as long as it is not Islam. Iran is also not stupid. They allow others, through terrorist cells, to do their bidding. They saw what happened to Saddam so they are being far more clever about how they do things while just shouting rhetoric which nobody can do anything about.

quote:
The reason the US government doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons is because when it gets them it won't be so easy to push around


Wrong. The reason we don't want them to have them is we don't want them handing radical groups nuclear arms that they can then detonate in our major cities, killing millions.

Though, we don't really have to worry about stopping Iran, Israel will do that for us. The minute they sense Iran has a bomb, they'll bomb the crap out of Iran and all hell will break loose in the Middle East.


RE: Duh...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Duh...
By AEvangel on 6/30/2010 1:01:56 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously....you used a pro Israel website to say Iran is bad, that would be like me using a pro-syria website to say Hamas is good.

Give me a break.


RE: Duh...
By knutjb on 6/30/2010 6:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
OK you think Iran is squeaky clean?
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-20/iran-g...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/...
Iran is just one of several sources of funding but they do provide substantial training and other services. Look up the Twelfth Imam to get a little insight to Iran's desires.


RE: Duh...
By Daniel8uk on 6/30/2010 7:05:30 PM , Rating: 1
Of course Iran isn't squeaky clean and of course neither is America.

Let's look at the facts for the last few decades America has funded countless regime changes, been involved in illegal arms dealing, suspected of massive drug smuggling, invaded Iraq twice, invaded Afghanistan, started skirmishes and wars in Pakistan and Yemen, including the killing of thousands of innocents, but that's OK because the government calls this 'collateral damage'. I mean there are so many more incidents, like the Gulf of Tokin which started one of the worlds most bloodiest wars. These are just off the top of my head, there are hundreds upon hundreds of incidents that the US government has actively backed, funding and engaged in. Oh yea and lately you had your governments dog off it's leash down in South Korea screaming and barking for a war with North Korea, when it turns out that it wasn't even a North Korean torpedo that sunk the S. Korean ship.

Iran, as far as I know hasn't started a major conflict this century (correct me if I am wrong). They 'may' be supporting local resistance in Iraq, Afghanistan and supposedly Hammas but compared to the US (and the British, they are just as hypocritical when it comes to handing out 'democracy')
I'd trust Iran more than the US government.


RE: Duh...
By knutjb on 6/30/2010 7:35:53 PM , Rating: 2
Still upset over 1776 are we. Look in your own back yard and all the wonderful things the British Empire has done in the name of the King/Queen.

Since the Ayatollah took over because of poor choices made by our Jimmy Carter they have been instigating instability in the region. Maybe we would have been better off keeping the dictator in-place as the lesser of evils. The Iranians want control over Mecca and have sent large numbers of instigators to cause trouble during the pilgrimage. They have proclaimed their want to overthrow Israel. The Palestinians, same with Hezbollah, are merely puppets being used by surrounding countries, namely Iran. A simple assassination kicked off WWI.

quote:
Oh yea and lately you had your governments dog off it's leash down in South Korea screaming and barking for a war with North Korea, when it turns out that it wasn't even a North Korean torpedo that sunk the S. Korean ship.
Your source? They do have the ship and torpedo debris and you have unprovable conspiracy theories.


RE: Duh...
By Daniel8uk on 6/30/2010 1:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
You point to a link which is pro-Israel.. I expect a huge amount of bias here, I mean an incredible amount.

I think a lot of you guys find it hard to see between the lines, which is outside of the mainstream media, you know, the kind that like to push agendas, to be honest the state of the 'free press' is pretty much like Nazi propaganda in that all who defy the powers that be or stand up for themselves are somehow a terrorist.

To the Russians the Taliban were a terrorist organisation and who funded and trained them? The United States.

See, when it's in the interest of America it's freedom fighters and totally legit, but when it's against the interests of America it's terrorism, it cannot work both ways.

All major states sponsor terrorists in some way, shape or form it's a fact of life and America certainly isn't innocent, neither is Iran but they are currently surrounded by American troops so you can forgive them if they feel slightly worried about the whole situation. The more resistances in Iraq and Afghanistan, the more time Iran makes for itself. America has done and will do again exactly the same thing.

Also, the impending Iran war will not be some walk in the park for America, so I hope you guy's are ready for some really bad times. A fleet of F-35 fighter jets will not lower the causalities, We have found that out with the previous wars, this time though they are up against a well armed and trained military.

quite frankly I think it's not worth the loss of life that will be incurred by all sides. There is a peaceful approach, Brazil and Turkey tried to go that route but your Government and mine won't have it that way. Which is disgusting and hypocritical.


RE: Duh...
By amanojaku on 6/30/2010 1:49:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To the Russians the Taliban were a terrorist organisation and who funded and trained them? The United States.
Afghanistan never had a stable government after Mohammed Daoud Khan ousted his cousin, Mohammed Zahir Shah (King). Zahir (given name) was a better ruler than anyone before or since. There's been nothing but coups, and the Soviets helped arm one of the factions. Finally, the Soviets stabbed their partners in the back and took over. The US helped the Mujahideen fight off the Soviets because their country had been invaded. So did other countries. When the Olympics was held in the USSR we, and 60 other countries, boycotted in response to the invasion. The Soviets eventually got forced out. And the damn ungrateful Mujahideen went right back to infighting. Now they're terrorists, so it's only natural that we fight them for invading someone else's land, same as the Soviets.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1573181.stm


RE: Duh...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/30/2010 9:34:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, the impending Iran war will not be some walk in the park for America, so I hope you guy's are ready for some really bad times. A fleet of F-35 fighter jets will not lower the causalities, We have found that out with the previous wars, this time though they are up against a well armed and trained military.

Iran's aging soviet era military is neither well armed nor well trained. Iran's military is of little consequence.


RE: Duh...
By Daniel8uk on 6/30/2010 10:07:11 PM , Rating: 2
A war with Iran wouldn't be an air-to-air combat situation for US forces, the threat would come from the thousands of soviet SAM missiles they posses. As well as the hand-held surface-to-air missiles, yea, they won't be shooting a fighter down with those, but they will take out helicopters, which the US will need if they plan on making any ground.

Also, no one but the Iranians (And possibly the US, Russian and Chinese military) know what type of weapons they posses.


RE: Duh...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/1/2010 10:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/syria-buying-m...

It's public knowledge whenever Iran or Syria (Another problematic country in that part of the world) makes a large purchase from Russia. The U.S. sure as hell isn't supplying either of them. China and Russia are the only possible suppliers at this point.


RE: Duh...
By bigdawg1988 on 7/2/2010 12:14:15 AM , Rating: 2
I have to point out flaws in your arguments. After being blown up by HARMs the Iraqis learned it was best NOT to turn on their radars, except every once in awhile. And it was Apaches that took out some Iraqi radar sites when the ground war started. Flying low shields them from some of the old SAMs that Iran has. The B-2s, HARMs, and cruise missiles will take out the rest. Iran would be a walkover. Their main tactic against Iraq was mass infantry attacks. NOT something you want to do against our Army.


RE: Duh...
By alanore on 6/30/2010 1:41:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It will probably take a bomb being set off in London for you to change your mind, and, then again, as history has shown, it just may not.


You are a disgusting person! Are you some kind of sociopath lacking any empathy for fellow man kind?

What lessons should we have learn for the July the 7th bombings? We were bombed because we support the US Iraq war, is our lesson to simply not support the US? Some how I don't think so! Just because we don't live in the same paranoid fear as you MrBlastman doesn't mean that we weren't effected.


RE: Duh...
By MrBlastman on 6/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: Duh...
By alanore on 6/30/2010 3:14:35 PM , Rating: 2
Your not stating the truth, your just stating your paranoid delusion, scattering in some facts, and pretending to be an authority on the issue. I don't have trouble swallowing the truth, I just don't want your BS anywhere near me.

Firstly not every Muslim is a terrorist or extremist. Thats like trying to claim that every Christian is any extremist, because of a minority of them are f*ck nuggets. <cheap-shot>or every American is as paranoid as you</cheap-shot> Yes there are some extremists (Which Muslims renounce) that are prepared to end their life to take others. I think your point of view is just naive.

You keep claiming we need to wake up. To what? What are you proposing we do?


RE: Duh...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/30/2010 3:45:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Firstly not every Muslim is a terrorist or extremist.


I don't find where he said that at all on this thread.


RE: Duh...
By alanore on 6/30/2010 4:07:51 PM , Rating: 3
No problem Reclaimer77, it was taken from the post why I had originally replied to, where he states:

quote:
The Muslims, particularly the extremists, want us all dead.


See the section that appears between the comma, its between the commas because it provides supplementary information about the noun that is not required to make the sentence make sense.

Also the word "particularly" means that he is including Muslims in the superset and highlighting extremists. If he want to just mean the extremists he could have used "Specifically"

Short of him getting his grammer and his word selection wrong, I think it is a save understanding of what he is saying. Specifically if you take it in the context of his posts.


RE: Duh...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/30/2010 4:17:27 PM , Rating: 2
But you said "terrorists". I still don't see where he called all Muslims terrorists. You know what, you need to stop being so dramatic.


RE: Duh...
By alanore on 6/30/2010 4:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure I said "extremist or terrorist", The reason I know this is because I wrote it. I think you may need to take a chill pill to calm down and then think up a proper argument rather than twist my words.


RE: Duh...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/30/2010 5:18:08 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't you stick to HIS argument instead of screaming "racists" or "bigot" so you can smear him?

I'm so sick of you people. Get over yourselves, get over your political correctness, and open your eyes!


RE: Duh...
By alanore on 6/30/2010 6:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
instead of screaming "racists" or "bigot" so you can smear him?


Why did you use quotation marks? I would have had to say it in the first place for you to quote. Once again you have underlined the fact that you invent BS and then attempt to use as fact in an argument. If anything you are smearing me, I never called him racist or a bigot.

Ohhh please, open our eyes? Your the person that can't see any otherside than your own. Your so narrow minded you can even see it.


RE: Duh...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/30/2010 7:29:11 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Ohhh please, open our eyes? Your the person that can't see any otherside than your own. Your so narrow minded you can even see it.


I see them, it's just that I know I'm right.

And please, you are clearly implying he's a bigot or racists or else you never would have brought it up in the first place.


RE: Duh...
By alanore on 7/1/2010 8:46:58 AM , Rating: 2
What so now that I disproved that I called him a "racist" or a "bigot" (See I use quotation marks because they're words you actually used) You now say that I'm trying to imply it. That is your personal interpretation. What I said was "...not every Muslim is a terrorist or extremist. <snip> I think your point of view is just naive." See I called him naive.

That was in response to his(MrBlastman) statement that "The Muslims, particularly the extremists, want us all dead." That was what I took issue with, because its just not true that all Muslims "want us all dead" Are you trying to claim that the statement MrBlastman made is true?

"it's just that I know I'm right." If your right why did you have to invent quotes and facts to support your arguments?


RE: Duh...
By MrBlastman on 7/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Duh...
By MrBlastman on 7/1/2010 10:01:42 AM , Rating: 2
The Crux of the problem is this:

The extremists are the true evil, and they are a small percentage of the total Muslim population.

The PROBLEM is that the extremists are in POWER and govern and control the moderates. Thus, you have the extremists ruining it for everyone. If these extremists were possibly removed and the moderates were allowed to thrive, the world would be a better place for Islam.


RE: Duh...
By MrBlastman on 6/30/2010 4:01:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Firstly not every Muslim is a terrorist or extremist.


I never said they all were. Show me where I did. The problem is though, you have a few of those extremists running the government of a whole country in the Middle East--one known as Iran. This is a true danger to all of the free world.

What I really enjoy seeing is people like yourself get all bent out of shape and pull either the "paranoid" card or the "racist" card whenever I speak the truth. The reality is, I'm not paranoid and as said before, a realist. The problem here isn't me, it is people like yourself that can't accept the truth and reality of things.

Quit living in a cave.


RE: Duh...
By alanore on 6/30/2010 4:35:27 PM , Rating: 2
See my reply to reclaimer above.

Thanks for ignoring my questions to you, and instead just going on the defensive about me accusing you of being paranoid. Some may say that is a paranoid response.

Whats this truth you keep on blabbing on about? Yes I know that Irans leaders are anti-westerns, because the overthrown leader was pro-west, and then the west invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, all that stuffs in the public domain. If your government really thought Iran was that bad why didn't you go to war with them, particularly before they can develop nuclear weapons? Seems obvious that America saw Iraq and Afghanistan as more of a threat.


RE: Duh...
By Daniel8uk on 6/30/2010 5:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
"America woke up for a while after 9/11... sadly, they seem to be going back to sleep. How many innocents are going to have to [be murdered] within our own countries borders before the people truly see and believe [that there is no other way to mobilize our troops for wars] I'm not paranoid, I'm just a realist when it comes to these things."

The truth of the matter is that Muslims are far from blood thirsty evil nasties who want to kill 'all' of us. I guess by 'all' you mean the people who live in the free part of the world, where the grass is greenest and the only thing we have to put up with is fascist like governments, mass propaganda, massive corruption, constant attacks on free speech, spying on a massive scale, and a million forms of taxing people, and I could go on and on.

I'm a realist and I see the world the way it is, no countries government is perfect, this, probably will never happen, not in our life time, perhaps never. But to pretend that our governments just wants freedom, peace and the best for us is beyond a joke. And it's disgusting how our governments send thousands of brave young men (and women!) to their deaths based on false propaganda and lies.


RE: Duh...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/30/2010 12:29:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
that crazy guy, who by the way speaks more sense than the entire western governments put together is some psychopath hell bent on destroying the world.

He is crazy, but you need to remember that the President of Iran has no power. It is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that holds all of the power over there. He is very much a crazy individual with some serious points of view that given a nuclear arsenal could pose serious problems for Egypt and Israel.


RE: Duh...
By AEvangel on 6/30/2010 11:56:35 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
That is pure ignorance right there. It is the kind of thinking that lead to Japan attacking Pearl Harbor and Hitler being allowed to rise in power.


Nope, sorry that is not what allowed either of those things to happen. You need to read your history not the one spoon fed you by the Govt schools. Hitler was led to power due to actions taken after World War I any fool knows that. As for Japan and Pearl Harbor there has been numerous accounts of people pointing out how the US directly antagonized them into attacking us, am I saying it was justified no, but it was not with out provocation. Check out Robert Stinnet's book "Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor" on the matter, due the freedom of information request this info is coming to light now. FDR was desperate for any reason to get us into that war, over 3/4 quarters of Americans wanted nothing to do with fighting in WW2, prior to Pearl Harbor.

quote:
There is a great deal of contempt for us around the world because of our way of life.


Man due you get your lines spoon fed to you by the Neo-Cons, what about Sweden, Brazil, Iceland, Switzerland, Netherlands, Norway, Luxembourg, or Canada for that matter. Do all those same nations hate them for their way of life as well??

They hate us for our way of life....what a BS statement and if you don't know it your too far gone to even bother with. They hate us cause we are over there in their countries trying to tell all of them what to do, bottom line.


RE: Duh...
By MrBlastman on 6/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: Duh...
By Penti on 6/30/2010 3:12:51 PM , Rating: 2
Sweden actually has a moderate government atm. (Center-right alliance)

They spout capitalism just fine and it's silly how the employers organizations/associations prints and shouts garbage in support for them. Clearly demonstrating a break with the social democratic past.

It's actually still a social market economy though, even though the moderate party didn't wish for it to win and be created in the first place. But a social market economy rejects both socialism and laissez-faire. Much neoliberalism has been introduced though, but we still reject retarded stuff like reaganism and thatcherism which destroyed UKs manufacturing base for example.

But you know what? On average in the US you pay as much tax money as Swedes to your crumbling health care system which you refuses to reform. A system which is far far from Laissez-faire and where you have separate structures for veterans and so on. Theres only market economy in Europe. How neoliberal it is or not is just retarded. US has had problems for more then 30 years straight and have inflated it's currency, something that needs to be corrected eventually, pretty much the same goes for UK and a few other countries. While the strong manufacturing countries like Finland, Sweden, Germany, Norway etc mostly does just fine with trade.

But anyway in Europe liberal is right-wing or centre. Meaning by our definitions Barack Obama is a conservative. Green, social democratic and socialist parties falls on the left side of the scale. But that's mostly centre too. Greens being mostly bourgeois not liking unions and all that crap. But who cares most of our laws comes from EU. Where we haven't had the ability to even propose laws.

There's no socialism in Europe.

Friedman did just fine here with most economists being right-wing. Neoliberal which is a free market driven ideology. There's no alternatives to a market economy. Why wouldn't anyone want to start produce stuff by quota again? There's however different market economies and ways to run one. Last time Sweden was anything else was when we where a feudal and imperialist mercantile economy. Market economy is just so something basic as produce stuff based on orders (demand). There's no opposition against that. Btw as a result of the European left-right split, right win parties are actually named left or similar in the name :) But free market economy is liberal however you look at it. Liberal support for things such as US wars are huge in Europe. Your fine having Europe as an ally, many countries here has a much more privately run health care sector and way more efficient bureaucracy. Even if I wouldn't vote liberal or conservative. No body wants to see you fall apart but it's pretty inadvertent. But if market forces in Europe wanted to destroy America they could. But you could also destroy our economy. It's sad to see you ignoring your own issues. There's nothing anti-capitalism about it. Capitalism isn't about building cars in Canada and Mexico. Multi-nationalism is about building cars close to their respective markets. But you need a functioning market for all that to work. Your problems aren't Chinas fault.


RE: Duh...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/30/2010 3:49:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's no socialism in Europe.


AHAHAHAAHAH !!!!!!!


RE: Duh...
By alanore on 6/30/2010 4:37:37 PM , Rating: 3
Care to point out all European countries with socialist governments in charge of them?

And by Socialist I mean by its true definition not your liberal=socialist=communtist.


RE: Duh...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/30/2010 5:35:16 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah that's a problem. Because apparently you Europeans have redefined socialism into saying that unless it's outright 1970's style Communism, it's merely Liberal or Moderate, not Socialism.


RE: Duh...
By alanore on 6/30/2010 6:16:41 PM , Rating: 2
You could have just said "No" to the question, rather than trying to claim we changed the definition of Socialist.

Feel free to give us the full definition as to what Socialism is before we changed the meaning.


RE: Duh...
By knutjb on 6/30/2010 6:52:50 PM , Rating: 2
Europe is a mishmash of several ideologies but heavy on the socialism, mostly under the guise of social-democracy. For that matter there are no strict followers of a specific ideology on the planet. Even the Communist Chinese allow for some capitalism to fund the government. Same for NK.

So to insist on a strict dictionary interpretation creates a misleading question that is impossible to answer.

Socialism-Marxism-Communism-Fascism all share commonalities of overbearing government control over its citizens. It's all about power and control.


RE: Duh...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/30/2010 7:21:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You could have just said "No" to the question, rather than trying to claim we changed the definition of Socialist.


You just said that, had he been in Europe, Obama would be called a Conservative. And you don't think you've lost your grip on the definition of Socialist??

I'm sorry but it's clear there is some MAJOR PR/brainwashing going on over there if you people think that.


RE: Duh...
By alanore on 7/1/2010 9:02:20 AM , Rating: 2
Where did I say that? I think you've just wrote more BS and then claimed that I said it. Why do you keep doing it, do you think that I would notice? I think I might start inventing things you said, that'll be fun!

Also why did you go on the defensive, is it because your definition of socialist is nothing like the meaning in the real world? Every politics thread you seem to assert liberal=socialist. Its not me, that has experienced several different countries and their politics and studied politics at University, that lacks perspective of the political spectrum.


RE: Duh...
By MrBlastman on 7/1/2010 9:33:36 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Its not me, that has experienced several different countries and their politics and studied politics at University , that lacks perspective of the political spectrum.


There's your problem, right there. University is great and all, but the school of LIFE is far superior.

So, keep reading your books and trying to nitpick out of it--the rest of us are living in the real world and not academia and see things in a truer perspective.


RE: Duh...
By Penti on 7/11/2010 7:27:44 PM , Rating: 2
Some mayor PR in the US rather. Sure Sweden's Moderate party voted against are health care reforms in the 50's and weren't a social liberal party but it accepts the status quo. Much later mind you. But maybe you don't view Conservative Canada as a Conservative country either but a socialist one just because they have free health care.

But you know what Sweden's public financing of health care in dollars are less then the US public financing of health care, it's just that you pay just as much privately on top off that too. Less people dies of serious deceases too, it's simply to much supported even for conservative parties to muck about in. They don't have any support to reform it into a privately run system. Just as Canada won't remove their basic protection. Ideologies don't make countries into systems they aren't, your still a federal constitutional presidential democracy no matter which despot runs the country. Representative democracies are liberal democracies, a socialist state aren't what we in Europe consider a democracy. There's no such thing as a Conservative democracy. It simply falls into dictatorships if you change the principles of the state. Both on the left and right side. Conservative military dictatorships isn't anything unusual. If your afraid of stable representative liberal democracies ruled by centrists, liberal-conservative parties, Christian democrats and social democratic parties it's you who has been brainwashed. Liberal parties in Europe stands close to both the Republican party and the democrats as they are both right wing parties adhering to the same political and economic thoughts and policies. In Europe liberal parties where considered left ones though but that was in the 1860's or so. But ones upon a time the republican party was also a progressive party. Wanting some very small scale social reforms doesn't make a conservative into a socialist. Clinton was also what you call a conservative democrat. A moderate is still someone who prescribes to conservative though though. They would be pretty far out on the right in most European countries where everybody wants to be liberal centrists and speaks so highly of the market. Simply in Europe we have more scales, you do all that inside your two parties instead. But since we have social democratic parties everything to the right of it is denominated as right, or simply center. Doesn't mean they are not more liberal then every though and social democracy is something entirely different from socialism. It's within the center-right that all passion for NATO, closeness to US, republican party, and the conservative democrats exist. Neoliberalism is the same kind of politics economic politics US adhere to, all over the world. You simply doesn't have a split in the US, not regarding foreign policy, health care or anything really which is why they are seen as so conservative when they are in the conservative democrats camp. It's more about persons ruling not changing of ideologies. Liberals are simply the tax break free market peoples here. Which means we don't see as much difference between conservatives of your two different parties.


RE: Duh...
By Penti on 7/11/2010 6:30:58 PM , Rating: 1
So social democratic parties, those who brought democracy to Europe makes liberal democracies with liberal market economies with degrees of a mixed market (US had a severely regulated market a few decades ago, with price controls and other bullshit) governed by (market) liberal economic thoughts and economists into socialist states? A socialist state is another form of governance altogether.


RE: Duh...
By Nfarce on 7/1/2010 12:32:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But anyway in Europe liberal is right-wing or centre. Meaning by our definitions Barack Obama is a conservative. Green, social democratic and socialist parties falls on the left side of the scale. But that's mostly centre too. Greens being mostly bourgeois not liking unions and all that crap. But who cares most of our laws comes from EU. Where we haven't had the ability to even propose laws...There's no socialism in Europe.


Excuse me, but when did the earth's poles swap ends? There is no socialism in Europe? What the hell has caused Greece's massive collapse and near anarchy? What is causing Spain to be next up?

Those socialist governments have put so much mandate on how corporations and the so-called free market can operate (like in France forcing employers to not make employees work more than 35 hours a week) and socialist entitlement spending that they are collapsing from within.

The US is next as it shifts towards socialist/fascist agendas and more and more of the populate becomes dependent on the government teet. Just wait until taxes continue to skyrocket, spending continues to spiral out of control, and jobs continue to be lost under these incompetent idiots running America.

America, and Europe for that matter, didn't become great power houses of progress, invention, investment, and economic prosperity because of a quasi-centralist state government. I find it ironic that China is discovering that capitalism and free market enterprise is the road to wealth while America/Europe reel more towards socialism to "fix" our/their problems.

Go ask the Greeks how well that government control of the economy is working for them.


RE: Duh...
By gamerk2 on 7/1/2010 8:37:14 AM , Rating: 2
Working on that definition, Republicans are obviously Socalist; almost all the debt has occured under their watch...

And I again note: No Democratic President since FDR, over a 4 year term, has increased the debt as a percentage of GDP, where every Republican since Ford has.

Since Carter, twice as many jobs have been created under Democratic presidencies, despite Republicans holding the presidence office for 12 more years then Democrats have.

As for taxes, guess which party gives more tax cuts to those making less then $1 Million? Guess what, since Truman, the answer is again: Democrats.

Republicans are Fasicsts: They support an economy run by two or three businesses in each sector, then have the gall to call it "Capitalism". Meanwhile, those businesses pay workers less then their fair share, so while they make massive profits, the rest of the populace fights over a shrinking piece of the economic pie, leading to the market collapses we are seeing.


RE: Duh...
By Nfarce on 7/1/2010 8:52:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Working on that definition, Republicans are obviously Socalist; almost all the debt has occured under their watch...


You really are an idiot. Go back the last 80 years and look which party has ruled CONGRESS more. CONGRESS controls the economy and purse strings, not the president.

quote:
And I again note: No Democratic President since FDR, over a 4 year term, has increased the debt as a percentage of GDP, where every Republican since Ford has.


See above.

quote:
Since Carter, twice as many jobs have been created under Democratic presidencies, despite Republicans holding the presidence office for 12 more years then Democrats have.


Another lie. And I won't bore your useless liberal mind with a BLS link on job growth history. Here's a snippet over just the last decade:

http://www.allbusiness.com/economy-economic-indica...

quote:
As for taxes, guess which party gives more tax cuts to those making less then $1 Million? Guess what, since Truman, the answer is again: Democrats.


The government doesn't "give" tax cuts. But beside that, you are off the chain in delusional libtard LIES.

quote:
Republicans are Fasicsts: They support an economy run by two or three businesses in each sector, then have the gall to call it "Capitalism".


You need to look up the definition of "fascism" and stop wasting time showing ignorance. "Fascism" is GOVERNMENT control over PRIVATE enterprise. Now just who the hell do you think has been doing MORE of that lately, hmmmm?

quote:
Meanwhile, those businesses pay workers less then their fair share, so while they make massive profits...,


Look up profit margin vs. gross profit, tool. Sorry I wasted so much time with an ignoranus libtard quasi=Marxist.


RE: Duh...
By Nfarce on 7/1/2010 9:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
And one other thing: I'm not EVEN going to get into the failures and GDP% of deficit spending, dollar devaluing, home devaluing, job losses (hey like your hero The Community Organizer In Chief said on his latest campaign trail speech: "at least unemployment isn't 15%." When is the Teleprompter Administration going to start leading and stop whining and blaming Republicans who have been out of power of Congress for nearly FOUR YEARS now. And then there's that idiot Nanny Pelosi. Okay I'm done.

See you at the polls this November and 2012.


RE: Duh...
By Penti on 7/11/2010 7:46:38 PM , Rating: 2
Might add, Greece problems occurred mostly under conservative government. Not just their fault, but the massive lending was during that period.


RE: Duh...
By Penti on 7/11/2010 8:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
And btw you clearly don't listen, US spends more public money on health care then Sweden does yet it serves less people and rank worse. There you got your efficient system in full swing with the failure to regulate!

Most innovation in US is for that matter government driven. With the government and monopolies being the biggest clients of tech businesses and government science and research funding being key. You regulate plenty more then Sweden does. But you also fail to regulate many things. Most large enterprises in China is either foreign or government owned. It's not really a break with the communist system as it's the communists that starts and runs the businesses. In Europe everything was owned or approved off by the crown not long ago. China is a very centralist run system.

Social movements and social democratic parties have played a great role in Europe in the fight for democracy and creation of wealth just as workers movements in US where incredibly important.

It's still the same people in power in the US, theres no real break.

US crumbles under republican legislation and the unwilling to reform and govern. You need a devaluation of 20-30% or so. And serious reforms. You already have more regulations on companies then European countries. US is so freaking far from laissez-fair it's ridiculous.


RE: Duh...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/30/2010 5:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Their Mi-28 Helocopter we know very little to nothing about but likely could be a challenger to our Apache.


Pfft yeah maybe, but we have Airwolf!!

:P sry, couldn't resist.


RE: Duh...
By rcc on 6/30/2010 1:07:10 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
so lets stop blowing smoke up are arses with the idea that spending billions on aircraft like this makes us safer.


I'm guessing you totally discount that having said weapons has made those other nations somewhat reluctant to invade?

After all, if you were going to break into a neighbors house, would you pick the one where the guy keeps a 12 gauge in the closet, and a .45 next to the bed? Or the house where they leave the doors unlocked and trust in the inherent goodness of mankind?


RE: Duh...
By roadhog1974 on 7/4/2010 7:53:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm guessing you totally discount that having said weapons has made those other nations somewhat reluctant to invade?


I would think advanced aircarft have almost zero impact on
other countries invading. Arguably the last successful
invasion of britain occured 1000 years ago and they are
only protected by a moat you can swin across. The atlantic
and pacific ocean provide significantly more difficulties.

To successfully invade anywhere you need boots on the
ground. In the end it always comes down to infantry.
How many soldier do you think china would need to
invade the US? how do you think they could get them
there? If Taiwan is problematic for them when it is
close with a smaller military how much more of a
problem is the US giiven location and size?

You could be flying bi-planes and no one would want to
invade.


RE: Duh...
By rcc on 7/6/2010 3:09:45 PM , Rating: 2
Well, using your example, the only reason that China did not invade Taiwan immediately after the exodus was that the US could get modern (for the time) aircraft from the continental US to the taiwanese straits before an invasion fleet could cross from the mainland.

However, you are correct in that the logistics of invading the US from anywhere other than Canada or Mexico would be rough.

Then again, every time we have been in a position of weakness, for whatever reason, something bad happens. So why tempt fate again. Walk softy and carry a big stick. Our government does perhaps need to work on the "walk softly" part.


RE: Duh...
By Iaiken on 6/30/2010 5:48:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
id you forget that after the Cold War supposedly ended that we discovered that Russia had some of the most inferior technology on the planet compared to ours


The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. At the time, it was they had several weapons for which the US had neither an equivalent, nor a countermeasure.

It was also discovered that the US had misjudged:

- The size of the military before the collapse
- The size and distribution of the Russian nuclear arsenal
- How much more advanced Russian air defense systems were
- How capable the Russian ground forces were

The US is now finding out that they are on a similar path to failure in Afghanistan for the many of the same reasons that the Russians failed. This is in spite of the US advancements in technology since the Russo-Afghani war and is only further compounded by the logistical difficulties of waging war in the middle east.

As for the wars of tomorrow, the problem presented is entirely to do what we are seeing come from the US and other advanced nations right now. These nations ability to attack is quickly outstripping their ability to defend. This results in all of these nations being more likely to engage in a preliminary strike against another rather than wait until they are fighting on their home soil.

This is where the logistics of war come in. None of these advanced nations capable of waging war on US soil, nor is the US capable of waging war on their soil so the entire idea becomes a pointless and asinine exercise. It's simply impossible to get troop A to ground B without prohibitive losses or overwhelming superiority.

Thus it is in the interest of each of these nations to ensure that the costs of any such war continues to be prohibitive. If you look at the developments coming out of Russia and China, many of them are capability denial systems. That is to say, they are designed to deny the US capabilities that it requires to wage war.

- Systems for attacking logistical support on land, sea and air
- Systems for denying air superiority from behind a front

That is in addition to systems that they are designing to parallel existing and upcoming US systems.

This is without even taking the nuclear factor into account as a shooting war between the US and another nuclear power could easily become a nuclear war.

It's a strange twist on the chicken and egg problem. It's not a matter of which came first. The problem is that as long as one side is laying eggs to hatch better chickens, all sides have to in order to keep the cost of war as prohibitive as possible.


RE: Duh...
By gamerk2 on 7/1/2010 8:45:52 AM , Rating: 2
The sad part is our planes can outfly our pilots. Lets face it, even older planes can turn at rates that would kill any pilot, so wouldn't it make more sense to remove the weak link from the system? I say, lets start investing in alternative control systems for our planes, so we can push them beyond their limits.


RE: Duh...
By Shatbot on 6/30/2010 10:57:53 AM , Rating: 2
$380 Billion dollars. If only someone could reverse that and go to Mars instead. It's worrying to think what could have been achieved with that money.

I bet you could get a fair bit of RnD towards a space elevator, which you could then use to piss on your enemies.

Bring the "rain".


RE: Duh...
By delphinus100 on 6/30/2010 5:33:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
$380 Billion dollars. If only someone could reverse that and go to Mars instead...


It worries me that we would spend that much on it, when a rational program could get us to Mars for a great deal less...


RE: Duh...
By Suntan on 6/30/2010 11:41:00 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I mean all our major conflicts are against combatants that don't even have helmets much less aircraft.


Show of hands of the people in the room, back 20+ years (when we were paying and covertly fighting *alongside* the Afghanis) that we would have to invade and fight a war against the people we were supporting just a little while later? Anyone? You in the back?

Right, so now that you all look at history, and the fact that we’ve had open conflict on darn near every continent of this globe (and you penguins down there will get yours one of these days...) with darn near every major political power throughout our history, what makes you think that “going forward” we’ll only have issues with “the 3rd worlders?”

But the bigger question is, why do we keep having this same, tired discussion each week on this website? Honestly Dailytech, find a couple of new hotbutton issues to stoke the ole’ thread-counters.

-Suntan


RE: Duh...
By knutjb on 6/30/2010 7:15:00 PM , Rating: 2
Our failure in Afghanistan occurred immediately after the Soviets pulled out. If we had helped rebuild the country for around 400M for a couple years, far less than we spent getting payback for Vietnam, we might not be in the situation we find ourselves.

They do trust the military but that won't get us anywhere if the prez keeps putting in road blocks from the State Dept who the Afghans don't trust. The military is the strong arm, but the State Dept pushing for perfection in a very imperfect country won't get you far or in a position to leave. Europe needs to help more since a good part of their heroin comes from there.

If the world economy continues to falter the possibility of conflict grows dramatically. The moment someone breaks into your house is not the time to think about buying a gun...


RE: Duh...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/30/2010 2:35:08 PM , Rating: 2
Proving once again that he's an idiot. Way to go AEvangel.


Hurf
By Yaos on 6/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Hurf
By amanojaku on 6/30/10, Rating: -1
....
By Daniel8uk on 6/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: ....
By probedb on 6/30/2010 1:31:11 PM , Rating: 2
Since when have any of those countries been wanting to use the Euro?

Source please.


RE: ....
By Daniel8uk on 6/30/2010 2:18:42 PM , Rating: 1
"The upcoming bourse will introduce petrodollar versus petroeuro currency hedging, and fundamentally new dynamics to the biggest market in the world - global oil and gas trades. In essence, the U.S. will no longer be able to effortlessly expand its debt-financing via issuance of U.S. Treasury bills, and the dollar’s international demand/liquidity value will fall."

William R. Clark, August 2005,
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/7707

Having Iran, Iraq, North Korea or just about any oil producing nation in the world change from the petrodollar to petroeuro would effect every single American.


RE: ....
By CptTripps on 6/30/2010 1:45:53 PM , Rating: 2
Brown people, White people, Black people. Why does correctly describing a persons color get people upset? I understand that intent plays a big part (being derogatory) but for me, I call my black friends black and my white friends white. Welcome to 2010.

Example:
Not me - Hey, I'm supposed to meet this guy here to buy his PSP, do you know where he is?
Me - Right over at the bar, he's the black dude by the jaeger fountain.

Second, how do you know what Americans could and couldn't face. You don't even know what you yourself could face so please don't act like you know what everyone else is capable of. Nobody knows what they are capable of until put into a situation.

Last but not least, I personally could care less about celebs but do enjoy a latte. There will always be a percentage of people who are not "stellar" countrymen but you are basically stereotyping us (calling us brown) by not realizing that we are simply millions of individuals.

p.s. You do alot of US bashing, where are you from? Must be some country that has never done anything evil/wrong to anybody right?


“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki