backtop


Print 65 comment(s) - last by Chillin1248.. on Aug 16 at 2:50 AM


  (Source: Lockheed Martin)
The Israeli government will receive a first order of 20 JSF by the end of 2015, with

Israel is still considering whether or not it wants to purchase the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II (also known as the Joint Strike Fighter) aircraft, as Defense Minister Ehud Barak and other Israeli government officials discuss the expensive investment.

Previous approval granted Israel the right to purchase 75 JSFs, but Israel initially only wants just 20 aircraft.  The country expects to pay more than $140 million for each F-35, and it's unknown if Israel will be able to install all of its own equipment into the aircraft.

Previously, the U.S. government said it would remove some of its own hardware and offer an alternative or allow the purchasing nation to make slight alternations.  Continued negotiations take place, but it's likely Israel will fulfill the rest of its order after the first 20 aircraft are accepted.

"We work according to the assumption that other countries will receive the jet, and that is why we need to be the first,” an IDF officer recently disclosed.  "The JSF not only provides unbelievable capabilities, but will also assist Israel in boosting its deterrence.”

After agreed upon configurations, Israel will begin to receive its new aircraft by the end of 2015, with future orders expected to arrive shortly after.  Although there are some early contract problems, Israel and the United States are expected to come to a fair agreement as quickly as possible.

Lockheed Martin has been given approval to sell the aircraft to select countries, but cannot offer certain electronics and hardware aboard the aircraft.

The Australian military is interested in purchasing up to 100 JSF, but want to see additional testing information before purchasing the costly aircraft.  If an agreement with Lockheed cannot be finalized, it's possible Australia will work with Russia.  Canada is expected to purchase up to 65 JSF -- negotiations are ongoing with other countries as well.



Comments     Threshold


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

Not dogging Israel
By NullSubroutine on 8/13/2010 10:15:32 AM , Rating: 5
But they really aren't buying the aircraft. The citizens of the United States are buying them, and the US government is giving them to the State of Israel. Our .gov gives them something like 2 billion a year in aid which they use to buy weapons from their own factories, as well as weapon systems from our country. It's like buying stuff with an allowance.




RE: Not dogging Israel
By seraphim1982 on 8/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not dogging Israel
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not dogging Israel
By heffeque on 8/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not dogging Israel
By ClownPuncher on 8/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not dogging Israel
By UzairH on 8/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not dogging Israel
By SPOOFE on 8/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not dogging Israel
By aston12 on 8/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not dogging Israel
By SLeeeper on 8/15/2010 3:50:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Secondly even though the fact that the holocaust was obviously terrible there must be a reason why almost no country in the region supports israel.


Yes there is a good reason AND if you had ever opened a history book; you would have the answer...

You have every right to believe as you will; but please educate your self on the subject of the Jews and WWII before you rattle off an ignorant statement such as the one I quoted...or your whole post for that matter.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By Reclaimer77 on 8/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not dogging Israel
By AliShawkat on 8/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not dogging Israel
By Reclaimer77 on 8/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not dogging Israel
By Paj on 8/14/2010 4:29:47 AM , Rating: 3
Actually, Palestine was split up by the UN, and Israel was created. The war followed shortly acter this.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By SPOOFE on 8/14/2010 12:16:53 PM , Rating: 4
The British Mandate for Palestine, also known as the Palestine Mandate and the British Mandate of Palestine, was a legal instrument for the administration of Palestine, the draft of which was formally confirmed by the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 and which came into effect on 26 September 1923.

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine... recommended the termination of the British Mandate for Palestine and the partition of the territory into two states, one Jewish and one Arab, with the Jerusalem-Bethlehem area being under special international protection, administered by the United Nations.
Prior to WWI, that area was part of the Ottoman empire, which lost. After WWI, it was controlled by the British. Shortly after WWII, Israel was created. Shortly after Israel was created, they were attacked and successfully defended themselves, taking territory in the process. They still hold that territory.

I don't know where, within that chain of events, justification for the whole "occupied Palestine" notion can be found. "Occupied British Mandate", maybe. "Occupied Ottoman Territory", sure. But one might as well call France "Occupied Gaul" for all the accuracy and relevancy it would bring.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By jmunjr on 8/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not dogging Israel
By Jeffk464 on 8/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not dogging Israel
By poohbear on 8/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not dogging Israel
By SPOOFE on 8/13/2010 12:12:15 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
its the shadiest thing our government does

Abiding by the terms of a peace treaty is the shadiest thing our government does? What pills do you take?


RE: Not dogging Israel
By NullSubroutine on 8/13/2010 5:27:12 PM , Rating: 2
They don't just buy our products, as I said in my post, they also produce their own weapons out of their own factories with money part of the aid package we give them.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By Barium on 8/14/2010 6:02:08 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
the defense industry is the biggest industry in America

Poohbear: Sorry, but government is the biggest industry in America.

And every problem it "solves" just makes the government bigger (and doesn't solve the problem). Take for example the illegal immigration "reform" just passed; their "solution" is to hire 1500 more border patrol agents, complete with pensions, etc. This has always been their solution, and it has never worked. You can't hire enough agents to secure the border. But you could end illegal immigration by just requiring employers to check immigration status before hiring (it's voluntary now). That would cost a fraction of what they are spending on border agents, and would actually work.

Another example is 9/11, which could have been prevented simply by not training the terrorists how to fly commercial airliners, and/or by keeping people whose visas have expired from boarding planes without being searched. That wouldn't have cost anything. Instead, their "solution" was to create a new bloated gov't bureaucracy (Homeland Security) and to invade two countries, at a cost of about $1.5 trillion (so far).

No wonder this country is going bankrupt: we have idiots running it (not to mention the clueless people who keep voting for them).


RE: Not dogging Israel
By FITCamaro on 8/14/2010 12:54:02 PM , Rating: 2
Both of your solutions are racist. /sarcasm


RE: Not dogging Israel
By Reclaimer77 on 8/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not dogging Israel
By DougF on 8/13/2010 12:00:15 PM , Rating: 2
It's SOP that U.S. aid funds must be spent on U.S. equipment, no matter the country the money is given to. This benefits lots of people, those in the U.S. building whatever is being bought, those receiving that which is being bought, and helps to reinforce international goodwill. Egypt too, gets several billion dollars every year as well, though it's about 2/3 of the aid to Israel.
On average over the past two decades, the U.S. spent about 50% of funds on humanitarian aid with economic and military aid splitting the remaining half.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By chick0n on 8/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not dogging Israel
By SPOOFE on 8/13/2010 7:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh wait, Because Israel is our friend?

Because we brokered a Peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By SPOOFE on 8/13/2010 12:15:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Our .gov gives them something like 2 billion a year in aid

And another billion to Egypt. And why? Because Israel and Egypt aren't fighting each other. Holy crap, three billion dollars a year to NOT have a vicious war going on. It's probably the cheapest peace we've ever accomplished, and you begrudge this? That's insane.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By FITCamaro on 8/13/2010 12:19:10 PM , Rating: 5
You do realize that Israel is one of the most vibrant economies on the planet right now?

Do you know that the whole Core and Core 2 series of processors derived from designs at Intel's plant in Israel?

Israel is not Haiti. They don't just live off money that other countries give them. Yes the US does give them money to fund their defense. But that's due to a treaty. Not that I expect those who hate Israel to understand that.

Do you hate Haiti as much? How about pretty much every African nation which we give aid to? What about Mexico? South Korea?

Israel is just one of many countries the US gives billions in aid to. Now yes, personally I'd like to see the amount of aid we give reduced considering we have to borrow money to give it to them right now.

This "military industrial complex" BS got old in the 90s.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By chick0n on 8/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not dogging Israel
By FITCamaro on 8/13/2010 1:48:37 PM , Rating: 5
You're a f*cking idiot. Yes us giving money to Israel caused a 1.4 trillion DEFICIT.

And yes, working there costs less. What does that tell you about the US? That we tax too much. So what do you think the answer is?

Businesses aren't expanding here because businesses are either performing horribly or, even if they're doing well, they're terrified of what the next added cost of doing business will be when its thrown at them. They're already facing massive tax increases Jan. 1st.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By cruisin3style on 8/13/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not dogging Israel
By SPOOFE on 8/13/2010 4:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
Fallacious implication of exclusivity; there's no reason "returning to previous tax level increases" can't be "massive tax increases".

And I don't know how you can spend money you didn't collect.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By mrkun on 8/13/2010 4:59:56 PM , Rating: 2
He wasn't making a deductive argument.

You can spend money you don't have by borrowing it, which the US government can do for 1% interest or so.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By SPOOFE on 8/13/2010 5:54:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He wasn't making a deductive argument.

I know! It was fallacious.

quote:
You can spend money you don't have by borrowing it, which the US government can do for 1% interest or so.

Borrowed on anticipated future collections, yes. If the money isn't to be collected, you can't anticipate it.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By cruisin3style on 8/13/2010 8:22:43 PM , Rating: 1
Okay I'll play, spending 2.3 trillion and not collecting 2.3 trillion that needs to be spent is still adding 2.3 trillion to our balance sheets.

So while that 2.3 trillion may not have been directly borrowed to pay for cutting taxes it was borrowed to pay for other things that that 2.3 trillion could have payed for were it collected.

We added around 4 trillion to the debt under Bush, so obviously the majority of that 2.3 trillion that fell between 01 and 08 (the cuts don't expire until end of '10) could have been spent in full to pay for things instead of borrowing that whole 4 trillion.

So no, you can't just say "oh, tax cuts weren't spent they just weren't collected, hehehe"

As for my comment being fallacious, I clearly state (and therefore imply agreement) that the increases ARE massive because I say "and are only massive because". Instead of fallacious what my comment was was poorly worded, allowing pseudo-intelligent people like you to pick over every individual word instead of looking at the overall meaning of my message which was brief and made while I was "working"

So instead of saying Bush "spent" money on those tax cuts, I should have said Bush borrowed 173.9% of the total of those tax cuts during his terms. The difference is typing "spent", while i admit is not what literally happened with the tax cuts, is a lot faster than describing the overall fiscal outlay situation of the United States over 8 years and how not collecting 2.3 trillion dollars meant it was essentially borrowed instead.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By cruisin3style on 8/13/2010 8:37:31 PM , Rating: 2
err, it was closer to 4.8 trillion added to the debt


RE: Not dogging Israel
By SPOOFE on 8/13/2010 8:57:51 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Okay I'll play, spending 2.3 trillion and not collecting 2.3 trillion that needs to be spent is still adding 2.3 trillion to our balance sheets.

But it is NOT "spending 2.3 trillion". Moving the goalposts fallacy.

quote:
We added around 4 trillion to the debt under Bush

With deficits that got smaller as we got closer to '08 while the tax cuts remained static. Further, Obama's tax increases STILL forecast (according to the WH's own numbers, independent results are higher) greater increases to the debt than what we've seen during the Bush years. Conclusion: Tax cuts do NOT cause debt. Overspending causes debt.

quote:
So no, you can't just say "oh, tax cuts weren't spent they just weren't collected, hehehe"

Actually, I can. And I did. And will continue to. And, coincidentally, it will continue to be an accurate assessment. Even with your immature "hehehe" added on the end there.

quote:
As for my comment being fallacious, I clearly state (and therefore imply agreement) that the increases ARE massive because I say "and are only massive because".

Because of what? Because of your grossly inaccurate claim that Bush "spent" $2.3 trillion in tax money that was never collected. Further, your use of the word "but" connotates a negation of the assertion that the tax cuts are massive; the implication was the opposite of what you now claim. Perhaps you are not as familiar with reality as your earlier post suggests you think you are?

quote:
Instead of fallacious what my comment was was poorly worded

You suggested that the assertion of Obama's tax increases being "massive" was outside reality.

quote:
So instead of saying Bush "spent" money on those tax cuts, I should have said Bush borrowed 173.9% of the total of those tax cuts during his terms.

Instead of wanking over a former President, you should instead say "Our Congress has a problem controlling spending." That would be the most accurate - and, coincidentally, the least politically "hot-button" - means of describing our debt.

quote:
The difference is typing "spent", while i admit is not what literally happened with the tax cuts

You spent the first three paragraphs of the very post I'm responding to trying to explain how that money WAS spent. Cognitive dissonance, much?


RE: Not dogging Israel
By cruisin3style on 8/14/2010 1:53:42 PM , Rating: 1
On the first comment, you are stuck on the tax cuts only. Obviously we spent money on many things over 8 years, none of which had to be tax cuts in order to spend 2.3 trillion dollars that we didn't have. You know what, you are so literal and tunnel-visioned.. let me make it real simple for you

I owe 3 lollipops I've already eaten to Ron. Jimmy owes me 2 lollipops, but Jimmy is such a great friend I tell him to forget about it. Then I borrow 5 lollipops from Tom so I can give Ron his 3 lollipops and eat the other 2. How many lollipops do I owe now?

Our Congress has a problem controlling spending, and our Presidents come up with a budget every year that outlines that spending in great detail versus the Congress that comes up with a very broad budget each year after the President submits his.

I'd like to summarize this little argument with a fitting slogan: The Washington Post - If you don't get it, you don't get it.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By SPOOFE on 8/14/2010 2:12:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
On the first comment, you are stuck on the tax cuts only

As far as this exchange is concerned, yes, because the fallacious comment I wished to address was about tax cuts.

quote:
Obviously we spent money on many things over 8 years, none of which had to be tax cuts in order to spend 2.3 trillion dollars that we didn't have.

So you recognize that we spent money we didn't have. That doesn't seem like the source of the problem to you?

quote:
I owe 3 lollipops I've already eaten to Ron. Jimmy owes me 2 lollipops, but Jimmy is such a great friend I tell him to forget about it. Then I borrow 5 lollipops from Tom so I can give Ron his 3 lollipops and eat the other 2.

I thought you were going to make it real simple. Why are you using lollipops as currency? That's just stupid.

quote:
Our Congress has a problem controlling spending

Yes. That is the source of the problem.

quote:
and our Presidents come up with a budget every year that outlines that spending in great detail versus the Congress that comes up with a very broad budget each year after the President submits his.

I'm not seeing where anything I said is being refuted. Are you sure you don't actually agree with me?

quote:
I'd like to summarize this little argument with a fitting slogan: The Washington Post - If you don't get it, you don't get it.

I would offer instead that if you're owing lollipops all over town, you should be the last person to suggest to anyone that they "don't get it".


RE: Not dogging Israel
By cruisin3style on 8/14/2010 2:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
I agreed with you that I didn't mean to say/sound like we literally spent money on tax cuts in my 2nd comment, and yet that is what you continue to needlessly rail on. Then in my last comment when I guess I finally make it clear enough that I agree with that statement, your comments start to have less and less substance as we go on and have turned into a "show the clip" segment like on O'Reilly or The Daily Show where they either take a small percentage of what someone said and comment on it as if it were the whole of the argument or they make light of the comment to lessen the meaning.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By SPOOFE on 8/14/2010 2:59:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and yet that is what you continue to needlessly rail on.

Then stop trying to defend the comment.

quote:
Then in my last comment when I guess I finally make it clear enough that I agree with that statement

Nothing you have said has been clear, especially if you think you're agreeing.

quote:
your comments start to have less and less substance as we go on and have turned into a "show the clip" segment like on O'Reilly or The Daily Show where they either take a small percentage of what someone said and comment on it as if it were the whole of the argument or they make light of the comment to lessen the meaning.

I think you're just projecting your own behavior onto me. What "whole of the argument" am I missing? Abstaining from collecting taxes is demonstrably not the same as spending taxes. There is no "whole of the argument" to miss. The fact is that the initial comment was wrong, and you've been wasting time trying to obfuscate that fact - perhaps to salve a wounded ego, I suspect - with nonsensical drivel. I'm sorry you're gripped by such crippling insecurity, but here and now is your opportunity to overcome such a disability and grow into a better, smarter person. You're welcome.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By cruisin3style on 8/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: Not dogging Israel
By FITCamaro on 8/14/2010 9:51:51 AM , Rating: 2
So what happens when the interest goes to 2%? 3%? 4%?

Even a rise from 1% to 2% makes the interest we pay on the debt come close to what spend on defense. If it gets to 4%, then it will likely eclipse $1 trillion (given how we're still borrowing).

Read the news. We just started buying our own debt. That's how much and fast we're spending. Other countries aren't buying it fast enough.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By mackintire on 8/13/2010 5:58:56 PM , Rating: 2
Redistribution of the wealth can be a net increase in the effective tax one pays. Aka my money is worth less, what money I did get is now redistributed to those that did not earn it.....so I am now effectively poorer.

Redistribution may work when we are creating wealth, but the US is NOT doing that as the moment thanks to Pelosi, Reed and the Collective-Salvation Socialist President we've elected.

Change...the only thing left in my pockets :(


RE: Not dogging Israel
By cingkrab on 8/13/2010 3:13:00 PM , Rating: 3
The Israel design center basically bailed Intel out from the NetBurst/P4 fiasco with their work on the Pentium M architecture, which is the predecessor to the Core series of processors. I'm sure this had a big influence on Intel's funding decision.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By Reclaimer77 on 8/14/2010 7:28:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Im pretty sure if Intel open a new lab here, they can design the same if not better than Core series processor.


LOL wow, that's really your argument? Well uhhh hey, my dad could beat up your dad, so there!!!


RE: Not dogging Israel
By thurston on 8/15/2010 9:48:04 PM , Rating: 2
Your dad loves to gag on big fat cocks.


RE: Not dogging Israel
By FITCamaro on 8/15/2010 10:50:17 PM , Rating: 1
I think your mom is calling you.

Now that my dick is out of her mouth.

Go back to playing WoW kid.


"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay

Related Articles













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