Very true. There will always be a need for the military and I believe we should keep as well equiped as we can. I also believe it is well worth the cost of overseas bases so that if attacked we fight on someone elses territory instead of in our own country.
One of the biggest costs in getting updated and new systems is Congress. A good example of this is the Air Forces new F-22 Fighter, role, Air-Superiority/intercepter. Developement for it was started in the 1980s and due to congressional funding issues and other issues it has taken more than 20 years to actually get it into service and even then, at current acquistion rates, it will never actually fully replace the F-15, which first entered service in 1972, and has cost us Billions more than it should. Congress votes on each major system independent of the Defence Budget. As a result of this process, it was neccessary to get a majority of Representatives and Senators to vote for it everytime funding came up. To win the votes neccessary, the contractors had to create jobs in congressional districts, thus it has no real centralized production, parts of it are spread out pretty much through all 50 States. As you can imagine, this greatly increases the cost for the system as you have far more facilities and management personnel than needed. At a rough guesstimate, the system now cost over twice what it would if congress had simply given the Air Force an annual budget for research, development and acquisition and allowed it and the contractors to centralize development and production.
Another fine example of Congress messing with military contracts, the C-130J. The Air Force did not request a new C-130 model. While it did need some new airframes because some were getting very old, they would of been just as happy, probably happier, with the previous C-130H-3 models. The C-130H models cost approximately $40 million each, the C-130J models $80 million each. Congress forced the purchase and delivery of these new Aircraft, even though the service didn't want them.
Our military is among the best equipped in the world.
We outspend the whole world combined.
We do not need to spend more money on the ****ing military
A spending spree for some reason isnt gonna do **** to Iran
We already spend the most in the world, why if we spend more why would Iran all the sudden say "ohh ahhh yep you got us"?
Excuse me you are correct. We only spend 48% of the worlds defense spending.This is untrue, though we spend far and away more than the nearest competitor.
Or how about **** like this: U.S. Wasting Billions on Over-Priced Service Contracts; Government Lacks Data to Make Informed Contracting Decisions, POGO Tells Congressional SubcommitteeThat is correct, we do not. For example, we could dramatically slash military pensions and retiree healthcare, thus saving us oodles of money. It's just that we do not wish to do those things.
Someone has to develop the kind of high-speed programs and weaponry that we will bring to bear. How much do you think Stuxnet cost to put together, anywho? Do you prefer, or not prefer that it has thus far allowed us to delay actual kinetic strikes?
Because high-speed is high-cost. We could go low-cost, if you like, and just send the B-52's overhead with tons upon tons of older, unguided bombs that we use to pound Tehran and Qom flat. That's the cheaper way.
Lots of civilians get killed when we fight war on the cheap. Precision strikes with minimum necessary force are difficult and expensive.
Excuse me you are correct. We only spend 48% of the worlds defense spending.
Im saying that we already outspend Iran by a ****ing **** ton. What makes you think its gonna be different if we continue to spend?
We don't need any strikes. In fact, a good argument can be made that we don't even need an Air Force, much less an Army. ICBMs, cruise missiles, drones, and rare application of the Navy and/or the Marines are more than we could possibly need to secure the U.S. as well as most of the world.[....] Precision strikes with minimum necessary force are difficult and expensive.
And righties can't understand why so many around the world hate the U.S. :lamoBefore OPEC, oil cost a dollar a barrel! We and other advanced nations built those oil wells and should take them back. [...]
We don't need any strikes. In fact, a good argument can be made that we don't even need an Air Force, much less an Army. ICBMs, cruise missiles, drones, and rare application of the Navy and/or the Marines are more than we could possibly need to secure the U.S. as well as most of the world.
If you stop invading the suicide bomber's country, he will quit suicide bombing you. That may be a difficult concept for some . . . . . .Yes, because telling a suicide bomber who is already going to die, who believes that he will recieve 72 virgins in paradise from dying in battle, that we have nukes is really going to change his mind.
We don't need any strikes. In fact, a good argument can be made that we don't even need an Air Force, much less an Army. ICBMs, cruise missiles, drones, and rare application of the Navy and/or the Marines are more than we could possibly need to secure the U.S. as well as most of the world.
If you stop invading the suicide bomber's country, he will quit suicide bombing you. That may be a difficult concept for some . . . . . .
And righties can't understand why so many around the world hate the U.S.
If you stop invading the suicide bomber's country, he will quit suicide bombing you. That may be a difficult concept for some . . . . . .
We would sell the oil to everybody at five dollars a barrel, which is all it's worth. The whole world would love us for what would look like charity. Without the OPEC price-gougers bleeding their economies dry, prosperity would return to the importing countries. Did the whole world hate us for defeating the Nazis? Defeating the economic jihad against industrialized countries would be no different. In reality, the world hates weaklings and pushovers.And righties can't understand why so many around the world hate the U.S. :lamo
The Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over to an independent tribunal prior to Bush's invasion of Afghanistan. Bush refused. At that point we had no further legal claim on the man. Bush was certainly not interested in him.interesting. So your preferred response (for example) to finding Osama Bin Laden hiding in Pakistan would have been to nuke Abottobad? [...]
That you don't know the answer is depressing. Not a Ron Paul fan? (he's elaborated on that issue, much to the displeasure of the neocons).really? that's fascinating. say, when did we invade Saudi Arabia? I seem to recall something about some suicide guys on some planes........
The Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over to an independent tribunal prior to Bush's invasion of Afghanistan. Bush refused. At that point we had no further legal claim on the man. Bush was certainly not interested in him.
I thought it was common knowledge among the well-informed. Nonetheless:Do you have a link for this?
Bush ordered the strikes [Sunday] Oct. 7 [2001] after Afghanistan's Islamic regime refused repeated demands to surrender bin Laden, chief suspect in the Sept. 11 hijackings that killed an estimated 6,000 people at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in a Pennsylvania field.
Taliban Deputy Prime Minister Haji Abdul Kabir offered Sunday to surrender bin Laden for trial in an unspecified third country if Washington stopped the bombing and provided the Taliban with evidence of the Saudi dissident's guilt. Bush said no.
"We know he's guilty. Turn him over," the president said in Washington.
Bush rejected a similar offer aired by a lower-ranking Taliban official before he began the military strikes, now in its ninth day.
U.S. Jets Pound Targets Around Kabul | Associated Press Oct. 15 2001 via SeacoastOnline.com / The Portsmouth Herald
Before OPEC, oil cost a dollar a barrel! We and other advanced nations built those oil wells and should take them back. Our deficit was totally caused by price-gouging, which also finances terrorism.
I thought it was common knowledge among the well-informed. Nonetheless:
I agree high priced oil is a huge problem for America on multiple levels. However, I would stop at saying we violate other countries national sovereignty and "take them back". I say can we please believe in American technology and innovation and lets work on replacing oil as our primary energy fuel and thus cause a devaluing of crude oil. The economy gets fixed because Americans will pay the equivalent of pennies on the dollar for fuel in electricity. Most of our national security problems get fixed because we nor anybody else will need the suicide bombers' countries for our economic survival anymore. I don't particularly agree with the environmentalist but there's already an automatic support base for alternative fuel. For people like me that see something unhealthy in one of the most important commodities running the American economy having essentially a monopoly on personal transportation and to correct it the answer isn't adding more of the same monopoly commodity to the supply and something dangerous with volatile cultures that hate us and are willing to die to prove it as long as they get to kill some of us in the process, the time has come to modernize.
The Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over to an independent tribunal prior to Bush's invasion of Afghanistan. Bush refused. At that point we had no further legal claim on the man. Bush was certainly not interested in him.
I think the time has come to enact a national policy like the one to land a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth. The new national mind set to be to reduce the import of all energy forms from outside our own borders to nothing before the end of this decade. We have all of the resources we need to satisfy our energy needs and only need to use them.
Whether we are paying to import the 3 or 4 billion barrels of oil annually or paying our own citizens to harvest it and distribute AND export it, we will still get it, still burn it and still ring up all of the pollution like it or not.
The question has absolutely nothing to do with ecology and only has to do with the balance of trade, domestic economy and American jobs.
I would support the Tea Party a lot more if they pushed for a constitutional amendment for replacing the income tax with a national retail sales tax and giving the POTUS the line item veto as opposed to their drive for a balanced budget amendment.
What do you think are the best ways to eliminate the deficit?
I agree high priced oil is a huge problem for America on multiple levels. However, I would stop at saying we violate other countries national sovereignty and "take them back". I say can we please believe in American technology and innovation and lets work on replacing oil as our primary energy fuel and thus cause a devaluing of crude oil. The economy gets fixed because Americans will pay the equivalent of pennies on the dollar for fuel in electricity. Most of our national security problems get fixed because we nor anybody else will need the suicide bombers' countries for our economic survival anymore. I don't particularly agree with the environmentalist but there's already an automatic support base for alternative fuel. For people like me that see something unhealthy in one of the most important commodities running the American economy having essentially a monopoly on personal transportation and to correct it the answer isn't adding more of the same monopoly commodity to the supply and something dangerous with volatile cultures that hate us and are willing to die to prove it as long as they get to kill some of us in the process, the time has come to modernize.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?