backtop

Science USAF's F-15 Woes Continue to Unfold
Brandon Hill (Blog) - December 24, 2007 10:48 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 161 comment(s) - last by matriarch wolf.. on Feb 27 at 3:08 PM
Structural fatigue has been found in the "longerons" on eight grounded F-15s

It appears that the problems with F-15 are more than just skin deep. The aircraft, which has been in service for more than 30 years, continues to the hug the ground instead of protecting the skies over the United States.

A November 2 crash during a routine dogfighting maneuver in Missouri caused an F-15 to break apart in mid-air. The aircraft buckled and broke apart aft of the cockpit while performing an 8G dogfighting maneuver at 500 MPH.

"I heard a big rush of air, very loud, like a tornado ripping the roof off a house," said Maj. Stephen Stilwell. "It was like I was in a car and it's flipping down the road. I felt like the airplane was tumbling and I'm being slammed around, left, right, front and back."

Early analysis of Stilwell's crash and subsequent inspections of the grounded F-15s showed that cracks in the "longeron" main support beams aft of the cockpit were the cause of the crash. The Air Force discovered serious structural flaws of the longeron in eight aircraft.

"This is going to be a major problem, and it's going to be a difficult one to recover from," said retired Air Force Gen. Dick Hawley. "You could basically be without the nation's primary air superiority capability for an extended period of time, which puts us at risk."

"In my opinion, based on the engineering data we had, we should not be surprised that we're finding some failures in the major structural areas of the airplane," added retired Gen. Gregory S. Martin. "The question wasn't if they would fail, it was when those failures would occur."

The Air Force's F-15A, F-15B, F-15C and F-15D air superiority fighters routinely patrolled the skies over the United States before the intentional grounding -- that role is now filled by the smaller F-16 Fighting Falcon.

Some analysts in the aviation industry feel that the Air Force is possibly making a mountain out of a molehill in order to get its hands on additional F-22 Raptors at $132 million USD apiece. The Air Force is currently earmarked for 183 Raptors, but the problems with the F-15 could lead to additional purchases to fill the void left by F-15 airframes that are not structurally sound.

"I don't suspect that the Air Force is lying when it says it has discovered stress fractures in the longerons of the F-15s," said Center for Defense Information expert Winslow Wheeler. "But there's no big deal about that. Fix it."

There is currently no end in sight for F-15 groundings. More thorough investigations of the 442 airframes could last through January and there is no guarantee that the fighters would take to the sky shortly after the inspections are completed.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
....
By wwwebsurfer on 12/24/2007 11:08:29 AM , Rating: 3
While the F-15 has always been a superior fighter they say 'F-16' like it's not capable. What country has a fighter that has both the range to penetrate our skies and still pack a punch superior to the F-16? No one.

While I've got absolutely no problem shelling out for more Raptors - I agree that perhaps this problem is not as big as it seems.




RE: ....
By omnicronx on 12/24/2007 11:24:28 AM , Rating: 4
The F16 is an all purpose single engine multirole fighter, while it can do a little of everything, its not amazing at the f15's primary purpose, being a long range interceptor. The F15 is also a dual engine fighter, and can hit mach 2.5 at high altitude, something the f16 can not do.

I would also like to point out that the US has sold f16's or helped develop them in many other countries, as there are more than 4000 in service around the world today. So its not exactly like it's a trade secret and that they are vastly superior to everyone elses aircraft.


RE: ....
By lufoxe on 12/24/2007 11:33:50 AM , Rating: 4
it normally wouldn't an issue, but considering the F-16 has only a combat range of 340 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16_Fighting_Falcon) while the F-15 has a combat range of 1,222 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15) and the F-15 is deployed around the world, that's where it becomes a problem with the substitution.


RE: ....
By anthrax on 12/24/2007 11:37:18 AM , Rating: 4
The F15 is far superior to the F16 for its current role. These homeland security patrols aren't there to intercept russian bomber flying in from the north pole.

These partrols are designed to deter and foil 911 style attacks. Lets just say a airliner suddenly acts erraticall and deviates from the its flight plan. The immediate response isn't to blast the thing out of they sky with missles...

The first respone is the immediate dispatch of aircraft intercept and visually ID the plane. This is critical and time very short. A typical civlian airliner can travels at high subsonic peeds at mach 0.8... << The F15 superior performance will enable it to reach the suspect plane in less time, This gives homeland security & military leadership time to decide on how to deal with the threat. It also provides them with on scene information. It the plane really being hijacked or just has communication problems...etc .etc.

So how is the F15 technically superior to the F16 in the interceptor role ?

1. Superior engine thrust = faster acceleration, higher speed top speed.
2.) Superior fuel capacity = allows more liberal use of afterburners when intercepting targets. Allows greater distances to be covered at higher speeds.


RE: ....
By Amiga500 on 12/24/2007 11:46:35 AM , Rating: 4
At low and medium altitudes, the F-16 rules over the F-15.

At high altitudes, the F-15 is dominant.

Thats both maneuvering and acceleration.


RE: ....
By I800C0LLECT on 12/24/2007 12:01:16 PM , Rating: 1
So it's a good dog fighter...

We should let the foreign threat reach our door step before we're ready to hit back? That short range of the F16 could be paralleled to Germany and it's Messerschmidt through out the battles of Great Britain.

Imagine maintaining those capabilities and pooling them with several other advantages.

I don't think any of you realize what roles the F15 plays in our Air Force.


RE: ....
By rebturtle on 12/24/2007 1:36:00 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
We should let the foreign threat reach our door step before we're ready to hit back?


Do you really think anyone is going to get that close to our airspace without us noticing? Really, (Alaska notwithstanding) unless you have an unusual paranoia over Canada and Mexico, our coastlines could practically be covered by Piper Cubs. The carriers can track and intercept just about anything before it reaches our waters.

Not to say that we don't need the F15 or it's equivalent, but we're far from venerable without it.


RE: ....
By BladeVenom on 12/24/2007 3:15:57 PM , Rating: 5
Mexico already succeeded in invading the US. :)


RE: ....
By codeThug on 12/25/2007 12:51:24 AM , Rating: 3
While the rest of the country is being sold off to the Chinese and Arabs ala Citybank, Merrill Lynch, etc..


RE: ....
By Anonymous Freak on 12/24/2007 3:36:13 PM , Rating: 3
"The carriers" are not homeland defense. There are no groups of carriers stations along our coastlines. There *ARE* bases housing F-15s. I happen to live near the one that covers the Pacific coastline from Canada to California. I have seen F-15s take off in a hurry, in full afterburner, and go rocketing toward the coastline on more than one occasion. Once they even broke supersonic over the city (which is, 99% of the time, a strict no-no, implying it was a fast-moving incoming unidentified aircraft.)

Yes, the F-16 is a better "dogfighter". There is no real debate about that. But, as others have mentioned, the F-15 is a long-range interceptor. It can go fast, for long distances. The only other operational aircraft that matches its capabilities this way is the F-22.

Also, a couple notes about the F-15: It's official top speed is "Mach 2.5+", but the Air Force has documented that it can do Mach 3.2 in short bursts. Not that that speed is useful for much, since you would use so much fuel just REACHING that speed that you wouldn't have enough left to DO anything. The F-15 is also the only U.S. fighter that has more thrust than it weighs. This means that it can ACCELERATE straight up, like a rocket. One of the 'trick takeoffs' that the local F-15s used to do is go halfway down the runway at full military power, turn straight vertical, turn on the afterburners, and climb straight up to 30,000 feet+ before leveling off. It is VERY impressive to watch this. Although, again, it's not the most useful thing to do, since it is actually an INEFFICIENT way of gaining altitude, because you don't take advantage of the lift of the wings. But it does look impressive. :-p

The F-16 is a good aircraft, and definitely has its place. In some areas, it is even better than the F-15. (It can loiter at lower speeds than the F-15, so it is more useful as a close air support craft; although the A-10 is the perfect close support aircraft.) But for long-range interception, the F-15 can't be beat. (The F-14A was even superior to the F-15 in that role, but that's because that was its SOLE purpose in life. When they moved to the "SuperTomcat", it lost its edge over the F-15. Likewise, the F-15E "Strike Eagle" is not quite as good as the A-D models at long range interception, but is a much better ground-attack aircraft.)


RE: ....
By Cattman on 12/25/2007 2:52:27 AM , Rating: 2
Tons of planes can ACCELERATE going vertical including the F-16.


RE: ....
By 9nails on 12/25/2007 3:30:57 AM , Rating: 2
Not just accelerate, but to continue to accelerate as it climbs in altitude. Other aircraft cannot break through gravity's grip. They might be able to accelerate but will soon bleed off speed while in sustained vertical flight and cannot approach 30,000 feet from zero altitude like the F-15. Like they said, this isn't useful, but in a 3D dogfighting world this is just one more direction that an F-15 can run where other aircraft cannot follow. Simply put, the F-15 is a beast. In a large combat arena, the F-15 is always the aggressor. You need to coax an F-15 into a small combat zone to get the upper hand with a fancy fly-by-wire F-16. Otherwise the F-15 is a brute and has no problems reminding you why it's still America's first fighter when called to action.


RE: ....
By Motley on 12/25/2007 2:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
That isn't acceleration. "bleed off speed" is deceleration.


RE: ....
By Dasickninja on 12/25/2007 11:45:02 PM , Rating: 2
There is technically no such thing as deceleration. Only positive and negative acceleration.

Sorry for the pedantry.. that was pretty much beaten into us in Physics class. :)


RE: ....
By damncrackmonkey on 12/26/2007 2:42:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The F-15 is also the only U.S. fighter that has more thrust than it weighs. This means that it can ACCELERATE straight up, like a rocket.


I would of thought VTOL's would be capable of vertical acceleration...


RE: ....
By 91TTZ on 12/26/2007 1:53:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
would of thought VTOL's would be capable of vertical acceleration...


None of our VTOL aircraft are fighters. The harrier would be the closest, but even that has an "A" designation (it's an attack aircraft, not a fighter)


RE: ....
By 91TTZ on 12/26/2007 1:51:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, a couple notes about the F-15: It's official top speed is "Mach 2.5+", but the Air Force has documented that it can do Mach 3.2 in short bursts.


You're thinking of the Russian Mig-25, not the F-15. The F-15 can't go mach 3.2


RE: ....
By rcc on 12/26/2007 3:06:53 PM , Rating: 2
Most of the US fighters since the 70s have been capable of vertical acceleration. All it takes is a positive thrust to weight ratio. Obviously some do it better than others, and none do it when fully loaded for A/G. Since the early F15 models didn't have an air to ground capability, I suppose you could claim it was the only one that could with a "full" load.

Back in the 70s, one of the cool but useless stats was that the F15 could beat a Saturn V rocket from 0 to 50,000 feet. Of course after that it got it's doors blown off, but like all statistics if you can choose your filters you can pick your results.


RE: ....
By omnicronx on 12/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: ....
By Amiga500 on 12/27/2007 9:16:31 AM , Rating: 1
Absolutely correct in that both aircraft will be munition limited to around Mach 1.2. Unless the USAF intends to deter incoming with just cannon rounds.

The F-16 has less drag than the F-15, and a bigger motor, so can accelerate quicker where there is more air (low alt).

At higher altitudes, the energy bleeds of the F-16 is higher than the -15, leading to it being less sustained manouverability, but still better dynamics.


RE: ....
By sinful on 12/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: ....
By rninneman on 12/24/2007 1:11:59 PM , Rating: 5
You should learn what a pork-barrel project is before you go spouting off your left-wing rhetoric.

F-22s are not pork in the federal budget. Earmarks or pork are pet projects that benefits a congressmen's district. There are roughly 10,000 in the budget passed last week. An example of the pork in this budget is a bike path in Minnesota for $700,000. Why should my federal tax dollars build something that Minnesota state or local tax dollars be paying for? I would rather have the $10 billion in pork go to things that benefit the whole country, such as more F-22s if we truly need them.


RE: ....
By sinful on 12/24/2007 2:10:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
An example of the pork in this budget is a bike path in Minnesota for $700,000. Why should my federal tax dollars build something that Minnesota state or local tax dollars be paying for?


If terrorists disabled our transportation infrastructure, bike paths might be the only reliable method of transportation!
And that bike path could be used to fight terrorists!

See, you can say "It's to fight terrorism" to just about *anything*. And when you do, often it sounds hokey and just a desperate attempt to cause FUD. If the need for the bike path was "OMG we need a bike path to fight terrorists!" I would be saying it's hokey too.

In fact, nowdays citing "to fight terrorism" is the classic mark that "it's a waste of money" or that it's completely unnecessary.

And one interpretation of "Pork Barrel" is merely pursuing special interests for one group at the expense of the whole and which serves no real benefit.

F22's *by themselves* aren't pork, but when the need for them is HOKEY, they *become* pork - just the same as if the Minessota bike trail was built in the middle of nowhere and went nowhere - Or if tanks were "needed" for defending HAWAII from an Iranian invasion.

quote:
Why should my federal tax dollars build something that Minnesota state or local tax dollars be paying for? I would rather have the $10 billion in pork go to things that benefit the whole country, such as more F-22s if we truly need them.


And I would rather have my tax money go to a LEGITIMATE use than a HOKEY use.

But hey, you can spend 14,000x as much on *EXTRA* F22's on some delusional belief they're being used to intercept hijacked aircraft in the US and protect you from terrorists.

Of course, you might as well believe that bike trail is being used by law enforcement to stop terrorists, too - and doing so at one fourteen-thousandth the cost of what the EXTRA F22's cost. (In that regard it's a really good value!)

I just find it amazing you can complain about the wasted ~ $.005 you pay extra in taxes for a useless bike trail but then just blindly OK the extra ~$140 tax charge because it *might* be used to fight terrorism.
Maybe I'm cynical, but I would think you would eye the $140 charge MUCH more critically than the < $.005 charge -- and not just accept some hokey "It's to fight terrorism!!" excuse that somebody threw at you (which you clearly swallowed hook, line, and sinker).


RE: ....
By Ringold on 12/24/2007 4:14:28 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
(which you clearly swallowed hook, line, and sinker).


In defense of the poster you responded to, he never once used the word terrorism, he stated F-22s would provide national benefit. You're the one going off the deep end on terrorism.

Beyond that, on the issue of F-22 purchases being "hokey", perhaps you're stuck in the 1500s. WW2 wasn't won because we're a kick-ass nation of bullet-eating Master Chief's, far from it, it was won because Roosevelt made sure tons of "hokey" (by your standards apparently) defense purchases were made even though the public saw no threat and wanted no part of any conflict beyond its own borders -- and even though Roosevelt got himself elected on the promise that no American would die on foreign soil. When Pearl Harbor gave him his pre-text, and then Germany was dumb enough to join in on the party, we were ready to roll. We'd already been supplying allies military hardware for years, even letting Embry Riddle train the RAF pilots.

Much the same can be said of every major military conflict since; we've done as well as we have because we've already got most of what we need when we start. Once the battle is joined, we just fill out the details as needed.

Why? Because unlike some, apparently, most people realized after the botched and quite hilarious way we went about attacking Cuba in the Spanish American war that we no longer lived in an age where an effective fighting force would be summoned from scratch in January and expected to be battle worthy by May. That wasn't enough to convince everybody of the need of a powerful standing military, though; we tried again anyway in WW1 and ended up being a Jonny-come-lately, though crucial marginal addition for the allies, because it took, what, more then a year to spool up from the next to nothing we had?

F-22's, then, you see, aren't "hokey", nor are they for Iran or terrorism necessarily. Those issues will be, probably, long in the past before the F-22 becomes the nations primary fighter. "Frank" in Iran won't be re-elected, for example. They're for tomorrow. China? A resurgent Russia, perhaps a Russia that falls to new dictatorship post-Putin? Transformers? Who knows. Do you buy car insurance because you know exactly what will cause you to need it? I guess you wouldn't buy any; that'd be 'hokey', better have a bike path though so your car gets wrecked you can peddle on.

In fact, is it just me or has the fact that no major conflict has occured between developed nations since the 1940s not the best case of "peace through strength" possible?


RE: ....
By sinful on 12/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: ....
By kyp275 on 12/25/2007 3:37:27 AM , Rating: 5
Someone needs to retake reading comprehension 101.

Nobody is trying to play word games, the poster that mentioned 911 is anthrax, while Ringold's comment was refering to rninneman's post, which doesn't have any mention of terrorist or 9/11.

That being said, CAPs are designed to intercept threats, which does includes 9/11 style attacks, and have been in place for decades before 9/11, so what's your point?

quote:
And I guess you buy Transformer insurance - because someday, somehow, you *might* need it.


you completely missed his point again. But then again you probably already know that, since you choose to quote the transformer thing out of context. Why don't you try to rebuke all the other couple more likely scenario, like the car insurance?

oh, that's right, you can't, 'cause your logic is faulty.

quote:
Please, there are enough REAL threats not to go wasting money on the imaginary, "what if, someday, somewhere, somehow..." threats.


well what a GREAT IDEA!, now please go and call the Pentagon immediately, as it's obvious that you can see the future and know exactly what the "REAL threats" will be.

so, what will the real threats be again in another 10 years? 20? 30? What does your magic crystal ball tell you?

In case you're ignorant enough not to know, it takes years, sometimes decades to go through the R&D for many military hardwares, the F-22 program was started in the early 80s, and are just finally entering service almost 3 decades later.

but what the hell, I guess we should just wait 'til all our planes/ships/tanks falls apart, and the hostiles are knocking at the front door, and then we'll deal with it then right? :rolleyes:


RE: ....
By kyp275 on 12/25/2007 3:40:24 AM , Rating: 2
oh, and the pie chart is about as useless as they come. As if China spends just as much as the UK on their military? HAH!


RE: ....
By rninneman on 12/24/2007 8:20:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And I would rather have my tax money go to a LEGITIMATE use than a HOKEY use.


What is legitimate use? More socialist entitlement programs allowing the selfish and lazy to mooch off of the hard working Americans?

quote:
But hey, you can spend 14,000x as much on *EXTRA* F22's on some delusional belief they're being used to intercept hijacked aircraft in the US and protect you from terrorists.


I guess you haven't fully bought into the the whole 9/11 was an act of terrorism thing. You probably eat up conspiracy theories about it being an inside job. Do you wear a foil hat too so that the government won't read you thoughts?

Why don't you ask a family member of one of the 3,000 killed on 9/11 if they would have had the option of a $140 (based your your meaningless numbers) of their taxes to go towards a fighter that could have possibly intercepted the plane that killed their loved one, would they opt to keep the money or agree to pay it in hopes that it prevents another such tragedy.

Go ahead and bury your head in the sand. Ignorance is bliss. At least be thankful to the people who protect your right to make yourself look like an idiot.


RE: ....
By sinful on 12/24/2007 9:05:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why don't you ask a family member of one of the 3,000 killed on 9/11 if they would have had the option of a $140 (based your your meaningless numbers) of their taxes to go towards a fighter that could have possibly intercepted the plane that killed their loved one, would they opt to keep the money or agree to pay it in hopes that it prevents another such tragedy.


What an inflammatory and idiotic statement on your behalf.
You're asserting that 9/11 was caused by a lack of fighter aircraft to intercept those planes?

What a joke.

If anything, it was BLOAT, incompetence, and mismanagement of the resources we had that allowed 9/11 to happen, *not* a lack of hardware or equipment.
The same bloat you're ENCOURAGING.

quote:
Go ahead and bury your head in the sand. Ignorance is bliss. At least be thankful to the people who protect your right to make yourself look like an idiot.


You must be quite blissful.


RE: ....
By rninneman on 12/29/2007 3:09:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What an inflammatory and idiotic statement on your behalf.
You're asserting that 9/11 was caused by a lack of fighter aircraft to intercept those planes?

What a joke.


I made no such assertion. If you'd learn how to read, you'd see I said "could have possibly intercepted" and nothing along the lines of the only way to prevent 9/11 or another similar attack would be more fighter planes. I'm all for multiple lines of defense because some will most certainly fail. In fact, all of them failed on 9/11. (Wait, I forgot one line didn't fail; brave American people on flight 93 took the plane down themselves.)

quote:
If anything, it was BLOAT, incompetence, and mismanagement of the resources we had that allowed 9/11 to happen, *not* a lack of hardware or equipment.


We can argue until we're blue in the face about what allowed 9/11 to happen, but at the end of the day, the reality is the hatred and determination of a radical group of Muslim terrorists is what allowed 9/11 to happen.

quote:
You must be quite blissful.


Great comeback.


RE: ....
By Davelo on 12/24/2007 4:00:54 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe so but when I read the article I can't help but think it's a campaign to generate public support for purchasing a $#!+load of F-22s.


RE: ....
By eye smite on 12/24/2007 1:39:10 PM , Rating: 2
Think of the children? We are. Sun Tzu wrote 3300 yrs ago when you can't identifty your enemy is when you must be strongest. The reason we've maintained and had such a strong military over the yrs is because we keep going overseas and pissing everyone off. Now they're coming here, would you like to stop them with a spitwad gun instead? We'll put you up front, it's not a problem.


RE: ....
By timmiser on 12/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: ....
By eye smite on 12/24/2007 2:05:17 PM , Rating: 3
No, it's a teaching from The Art of War that he wrote 3300 yrs ago. It's required study by US Military officers to this day and his teachings of war ring as true today as they did way back then. Obviously you know nothing of war or defense or you wouldn't make an assenine statement like that. The problems with this country and it's military are ones repeated throughout history, but OMG QQ BBQ some dippy quoted a 3300 yr old phrase that doesn't mean squat to anyone. That's because people think they know and they don't and they have to learn the hard way. The children of this country are still going to stick the pin in the wall socket even though you told them not to, why? Cause they have to learn the hard way.


RE: ....
By timmiser on 12/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: ....
By MADAOO7 on 12/24/2007 2:10:21 PM , Rating: 3
It's a metaphor you ignoramus. Still though, terrorists don't have fighter jets, so while we need them to replace our aging fleet of fighter jets, do we really need a ton of them? Shouldn't we invest more in bombers, C-130H gunships, and fast-attack helicopters considering that terrorists are typically on the ground? What we really need is better border control, and technology that allows us to keep a better track of our ports and airports. We also need a president who doesn't fall short on promises and actually has a Homeland Security, CIA, and FBI that works cooperatively instead of competitively.


RE: ....
By eye smite on 12/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: ....
By JustTom on 12/24/2007 4:16:12 PM , Rating: 1
I do believe he was replying to timmiser, not to you. Now, don't you feel silly?


RE: ....
By eye smite on 12/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: ....
By JustTom on 12/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: ....
By eye smite on 12/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: ....
By timmiser on 12/24/2007 8:30:45 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, you really are a piece of work. There is no question you don't know how to read the forum but you would rather flip someone off who was just trying to correct your mistake before letting your ego get the best of you and admit you are wrong.


RE: ....
By JustTom on 12/24/2007 11:28:09 PM , Rating: 2
You have affection for pedophilic references, don't you? And calling our exchange an argument is an extreme exaggeration. What occurred is a snit from you because you are too stupid to click the parent button to see to whom a poster is really replying. But since in your life you are used to being called various forms of stupid your leap to the conclusion that ignoramus was meant for you is more than understandable.


RE: ....
By matriarch wolf on 2/27/2008 3:08:21 PM , Rating: 2
boo hissss


RE: ....
By MADAOO7 on 12/25/2007 1:49:18 AM , Rating: 2
Clearly you can't follow lines....the reply wasn't to you. I was already writing my reply before you posted.


RE: ....
By eye smite on 2/19/2008 9:16:12 AM , Rating: 2
Pumpernickel Breadstick Witch


RE: ....
By andrinoaa on 12/24/2007 5:37:49 PM , Rating: 3
Ignoro ( I am stupid )
ignoras ( you are stupid )
ignorat ( he is stupid )
ignoramus ( we are stupid )
ignoratus
ignorant

want to try again!!
sorry to but in, but what is the agenda here?


RE: ....
By PlasmaBomb on 12/24/2007 8:20:01 PM , Rating: 2
I think you mean butt in...

quote:
Butt in : Interfere, interrupt, intrude.


RE: ....
By junkdubious on 12/25/2007 10:32:17 PM , Rating: 2
But can you conjugate 'ignoro' in the 2nd person, plural, passive and pluperfect. Smarty Latin pants!


RE: ....
By BansheeX on 12/24/2007 1:17:46 PM , Rating: 2
Here's a better idea. Get our bases out of foreign countries, save a trillion dollars a year and reduce terrorist motivation and recruiting power, seal commercial cockpits and let the pilots carry guns, and then use a small portion of the money saved to buy raptors and anything else we need to protect ourselves HERE.


RE: ....
By eye smite on 12/24/2007 1:45:37 PM , Rating: 3
We had a solution for hijackings in place put there by Reagan in 1983. It was 10k US Marshals with guns on domestic flights everyday. He decided though that taking them off would save tax dollars for Americans in 2000, and less than a yr later they used those planes against us. So you're right, we need to put the Marshals back on the airplanes, but I doubt they will exploit that again, they'll find something new to use. The time to defend an asset is not after the fact which is a lesson taught throughout history time and again. Quit putting presidents in office that leave the country a mess, that's another novel conept, and I'm not talking about Bush 2 here. He got an 8 yr mess left by Clinton handed to him and it piled on from there big time.


RE: ....
By damncrackmonkey on 12/26/2007 2:53:47 AM , Rating: 2
What's more efficient:
Paying 10k Air Marshals everyday forever?
Installing 10k doors once?

If hijackers can't reach the cockpit, they can't hijack the plane.

By the way, pretending like Clinton ruined the country shows tremendous ignorance.


RE: ....
By gilboa on 12/24/2007 2:01:18 PM , Rating: 4
... And if (or should I say, when) Al-Qaeda takes over the oil fields in Saudi-Arabia, Dubai and northern Iraq, you'll be fueling your precious 10m/gal SUVs using what exactly? (Let alone conventional power plants, factories, etc)

More-ever, the last time the U.S. tried the "Lets retreat, barricade our doors and let the natives fight it out without us" approach ('Neutrality Act'), the "world" came knocking at your door (taking most of the U.S navy's pacific fleet with them).

- Gilboa
P.S. I'm not an American and nor am I particularly fund of the U.S' foreign policy...


RE: ....
By eye smite on 12/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: ....
By gilboa on 12/24/2007 3:24:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You just don't understand how the Arab nations work right?


Oh the irony. Being lectured on Arab history by someone that lives 7,000 miles away.

quote:
Al-Quaeda will not take on any other Arab nations, the repercussions they would face are more dire than the would be facing us. You ever heard the old saying about not pissing in your own backyard? There's a reason for it.


Let me see. So your point is that toppling the (unbelievably corrupt) Saudi Royal family (or Dubai ones for that matter), let alone the friendly nations such as Jordan will have far more dire repercussions then, say, trying to blow up the white house, WTO and the Pentagon and risk starting a nuclear war in-case the American lose their temper.

Right.

Somehow I sense that you don't really know what you're talking about.

- Gilboa


RE: ....
By gilboa on 12/24/2007 3:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
P.S. Sorry about my Piglish, I'm after a very long day at work...

- Gilboa


RE: ....
By eye smite on 12/24/2007 4:04:13 PM , Rating: 1
Yes because they know we won't nuke them not even if they sneak a nuke into America and blow up a city. There's no one in the politicians left that has any backbone for that. Clinton gave us to the world economy, we need to become America again and quit worrying about what people think. In other words, deal with us as we are or stay the hell away. We'll do just fine either way.


RE: ....
By BansheeX on 12/24/2007 4:37:31 PM , Rating: 2
All the more reason to reposition our resources into securing our borders. Not only will it increase our chances of stopping such an attack, the policy change will drastically reduce the desire of someone wanting to kill themselves and millions of foreigners.

This surrogate exchange argument by neocons also fails to account for the sheer number of third world countries who are going to get nukes at some point regardless of what we do. What is your solution, invade them all, sacrifice our liberties, our sons and daughters, ourselves even, because of the "chance" that someone could do something like this? I'm sorry, but that strategy represents a way of life that is simply not worth preserving.


RE: ....
By eye smite on 12/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: ....
By andrinoaa on 12/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: ....
By eye smite on 12/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: ....
By junkdubious on 12/25/2007 10:37:55 PM , Rating: 1
Who the hell has the fire power to invade good ol US of A?

China...


RE: ....
By 91TTZ on 12/26/2007 1:50:02 PM , Rating: 2
China doesn't have the firepower to invade. Their military is obviously designed for protecting its borders/fighting close to its borders.

They have lots of troops and tanks, but not many logistics aircraft like long-distance cargo planes and bombers.

The US, with its aircraft carriers, long distance bombers and cargo aircraft, and other logistical support systems is one of the only countries capable of supporting a war from a long distance.


RE: ....
By rcc on 12/26/2007 3:00:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who the hell has the fire power to invade good ol US of A?


One could debate it, but what's the point. The point is, why? Um, because we have spent the money in the past to create the tools we currently have that allow us that security. And we'll spend money today to make sure that it's true in the future.

quote:
Think, Every man and his dog has a gun in US of A, yet you still think you will get invaded?


No, they don't. They probably should have, but they don't. That whole anti-gun lobby thing that perhaps you've heard of. That would be the US version of the countries that can claim in a similar manner that they are peacable, because they know someone else will defend them if need be.


RE: ....
By BansheeX on 12/24/2007 6:23:54 PM , Rating: 3
Nobody is taking it for granted, you are simply trying to convince yourself that preemptive war is justifiable. How am I going to fight for freedom when the government has left me and my family with no property rights or privacies to protect? True freedom carries with it an inherent amount of risk. Mutually assured destruction and secure borders is the best you can do. A trillion dollars a year in military expenditures would be far more effective on technological research. Sovereignty and life is always going to be at risk, but there are better ways of protecting it than preemptive war.


RE: ....
By eye smite on 12/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: ....
By eye smite on 2/18/2008 11:21:20 PM , Rating: 1
Well it's the truth.


RE: ....
By BansheeX on 12/24/2007 3:49:31 PM , Rating: 3
Al-Qaeda taking over oil fields in Saudi Arabia? If we had played fair and traded with people at fair prices, Al-Qaeda wouldn't even exist right now. And even so, you don't seem to understand that expensive gas would not be an issue if our economy wasn't a complete joke. We put ourselves in this position with the Federal Reserve system of hyperinflation with no gold backing or oversight.

As for WWII, that was the last time we won a war, and it was a just war after being viciously attacked. Not to mention that Hitler's rise to power was a result of overly harsh reparations in the Versaille Treaty after WWI. Their economy was so crushed from it that it allowed someone like Hitler to foster unthinking antagonistic nationalism and win elections with 98% of the vote.

Saddam was not a threat to our national security. Osama was and we went after him in Afghanistan. He escaped into the mountains of Pakistan and we pretty much diverted our resources into nation building. More importantly, though, is understanding the source of Islamic extremism and suicide terrorism in the first place, born and fueled from Western "involvement" and presence in the Middle East for the better part of the 20th century. We have permanent bases in holy land. We've sold weapons to the Taliban in the name of fighting communism. We made lucrative protection deals with Saddam Hussein, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to keep them selling oil in dollars. The CIA overthrew an elected leader in Iran in 1941 because, get this, he wanted to control his own country's resources. Who did we replace him with? A monarch. We are not out there to "spread democracy" when we make friends with military dictatorships and attack elected officials. It is not and never was about government ideology. Now that we've declared an infinite war on a tactic, we can brainwash the whole country into going anywhere, anytime, preemptively with no understanding of true cause and effect.


RE: ....
By JustTom on 12/24/2007 4:26:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Their economy was so crushed from it that it allowed someone like Hitler to foster unthinking antagonistic nationalism and win elections with 98% of the vote.


The NAZI party in Germany never won a simple majority in any election let alone 98%. In 1933 the Nazi party garnered 44% of the vote, a far cry from 98%.


RE: ....
By BansheeX on 12/24/2007 5:20:45 PM , Rating: 2
I got that number wrong, but they were elected nonetheless.


RE: ....
By JustTom on 12/24/2007 5:53:17 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is when you play fast and loose with the facts you make it easier to blow holes into your argument. You have a large number of fallacies in your post, in 1941 the Russians and English were invading Iran because its fascist government was very possibly going to join the Axis powers. The leader displaced was actually a Shah, not an elected leader. I think you are referring to 1953 when the US joined the UK in her effort to overthrow Prime Minister Mossadegh on the pretext that he was a tool of the Iranian Communist party and therefore in the pockets of Moscow.


RE: ....
By BansheeX on 12/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: ....
By JustTom on 12/24/2007 7:25:13 PM , Rating: 2
So, it is your view tha facts don't matter? The why bother presenting your (false) data at all? Just state your opinion without and let it go at that instead of posting meaningless data and false history.


RE: ....
By gilboa on 12/25/2007 8:03:17 AM , Rating: 5
To be honest, I saw your post and was appalled by the shear number of historical mistakes it contained and decided to ignore it.

As others already pointed out:
A. Hitler never won the election - the Nazi party only managed to gain ~37% (1932), ~33% (1932) and 44% (1933) of votes. A far cry from the required 2/3 majority he needed to effectively cancel the role of the Reichstag.
B. The Shah was forcibly returned to his seat in 1953, not in 1941.
C. There are -no- U.S. military bases (or otherwise) in Israel. (Please point me to a solid source of information if I'm wrong)
D. The U.S. helped the -Mujahideen- warlords in their war against the Soviet Union; The U.S. did not help the Taliban (which was formed long after the war). More-ever, the Taliban actually fought against the remains of the Mujahideen (AKA Northern Alliance) in the ~10 year long Afghan civil war.

In short, you have 0/4.

As for your second post, lets see if I get what you're saying:
You don't really know (or care about) history. You don't really know much about Arabs, their history and their religion (E.g. Shia vs. Sunni) - nor do you really care. (Read: Care enough to -check- what you're posting, before posting it).
In essence, you don't really let the facts stand in your way.

... And yet your views are correct, because?

- Gilboa


RE: ....
By Ringold on 12/25/2007 12:27:48 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
In essence, you don't really let the facts stand in your way.


Perhaps he's a politician?


RE: ....
By BansheeX on 12/26/2007 1:35:51 PM , Rating: 2
Once again, the first two are statistical mix-ups and I should have looked them up first. What, do you remember correct dates for every event, and does an incorrect date change the fact that we did indeed forcibly depose an elected leader and install our own? No it doesn't. But you'd rather just obsess over the statistical error as an argument. Congrats, I guess I lose.

C and D aren't even true. I never said we had bases in Israel, I said we had bases in holy land, which is meant to imply SAUDI ARABIA. So the Taliban didn't get weapons from us second-hand? Who do you think the Taliban was composed out of? You're an idiot.


RE: ....
By gilboa on 12/27/2007 1:42:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're an idiot.


Like any other 5 y/o, once you ran out of (false) arguments and (made-up) facts, all that remains are personal insults.

So sad... so unbelievably boring.

- Gilboa


RE: ....
By Ringold on 12/24/2007 4:36:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If we had played fair and traded with people at fair prices


Buyers meet sellers on equal grounds every week of the year, where sellers offer supply at various points in the future and market participants haggle over what these promises are worth, all without any real government intervention.

Where is this magical place, you ask?

The New York Mercantile Exchange. If the Arab states don't like what the free market gives them, they're free to cry under their beds, or fund terrorism, but neither OPEC nor the US sets prices. A million unknown and uncontrollable free market forces do that.

quote:
born and fueled from Western "involvement" and presence in the Middle East for the better part of the 20th century. We have permanent bases in holy land.


That's what they use for propaganda and recruiting purposes in some situations, yes. If you'd bother to read when some former and current members of Islamic extremist groups provide honest interviews to the media, though, you'd note their true goal and motivation: the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate, where if non-believers survive they do so as distant second-class citizens.

"And though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice ."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new...

That whole article is worth reading, but I saved you some of the effort.

Newsweek and others have managed to get terrorists to say interesting things, such as an article I recall a couple years ago where they bragged they already had scores of home-grown white-skinned terrorist sleeper cells spread all throughout Europe. They showed where they were being trained, and the reporter noted green (or were they blue?) eyes from beneath some of the masks there in Pakistan, suggesting it was quite true.

You have half the story right, but the other half you wouldn't hear from CNN much; it wouldn't be politically correct.


RE: ....
By BansheeX on 12/24/2007 5:59:28 PM , Rating: 1
Saddam was going to switch to the Euro in 2000 and Iran just recently did it. This is quite obviously the main reason we demonize some Middle Eastern countries while making friends with others. Our runaway monetary policy and desire to maintain global supremacy is what requires us to go to war under the pretense of immediate threat. We need to achieve supremacy legitimately by having a stable currency, not deposing other country's leaders and installing ones we can buy.

Also, you are quoting an extremist group. Real Islam in Western nations is quite progressive and would probably have been even moreso today if we had always used envy and diplomacy as methods of persuasion rather than force (which has the opposite effect no matter how right you are or think you are because of something called PRIDE). We have homegrown racists and extremists here, too, but they don't have anywhere NEAR the popularity to pose a real threat to our laws or our way of life. Believe it or not, many youths in Iran love Western art, sports, and culture, and go underground to risk enjoying them. If we left them alone and traded with them, I honestly believe that people would gravitate towards freedom. Freedom is not a "Western" idea, it is a universal one, and these countries are constantly bombarded from within with symphathizers and women's rights movements.


RE: ....
By Ringold on 12/24/2007 8:06:38 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Saddam was going to switch to the Euro in 2000 and Iran just recently did it.


What on Earth are you talking about? Oil prices? Oil futures contracts are denominated in USD and will be for the foreseeable future. The dollar has a cyclical drop and it's turned in to a political football. Even if one or two countries tried to sell their production in other currencies, they'd face efficiency problems when the vast majority is traded in USD. If you're talking about currency pegs, Iran's currency was pegged first to the British pound, then the US dollar, and since 2002 has floated on the market. Currently, they can't get access to dollars legally, but are clamoring and paying huge premiums to access dollars via Dubai. Paying premiums of 10-20% by some estimates doesn't indicate softening demand to me...

quote:
Also, you are quoting an extremist group.


If we were talking about the goals and aspiration of Nazi party members, why the hell talk about the average German man who may or may not even like the Nazi party of the 1930s and 1940s? You lacked a response to the fact that they admit their goal is a global caliphate and that they're commited for the long haul to achieve this goal (and are capable of causing spectacular damage even if they're not capable of achieving their goal), and so you changed the subject about how the average follower of Islam is probably a nice guy. If you want to talk about them, then sure, they probably are, I agree, but that's not who we were talking about. The average German citizen of the 1930s probably didn't want to kill millions, but they weren't in control of history, were they?

quote:
If we left them alone and traded with them, I honestly believe that people would gravitate towards freedom.


In the case of Iran, I agree. All indications are the guy won't be re-elected, and a more moderate president will replace him. A moderate Iranian leader could perhaps be dealt with. That said, we haven't been antagonistic and have worked almost entirely through the UN thus far. A moderate Iran deeply involved in the global economy with a nuke wouldn't be the end of the world.


RE: ....
By BikeDude on 12/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: ....
By Ringold on 12/25/2007 12:39:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've always believed this to be the #1 reason Bush invaded.


Dictators make random outlandish claims and statements for attention all the time. Khrushchev beat his shoe on thet able of the UN, did we throw a chair in response?

At the time of that link, not only was he grand standing, he probably sounded like a complete idiot, because looking at the exchange rate data at FRED, the Euro at that time was worth only 80 some cents and appeared to be in a continuing downward trend which didn't reverse until about the end of the first quarter of 2002.

Saddam could've gone ahead and done it, foreign states have slighted us in much more serious ways without provoking military strikes. To think we invaded over how they denominate their small portion of global oil futures is a little paranoid.. Especially given how this looked at the time:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/DTWEXO...

Even now, looks good to me. Nothing serious astray, just.. 'animal spirits' doing their thing.


RE: ..