Chickenhawk Romney's hilarious OP ED in Chicago Tribune

[paulitician]

You have to wonder about the mental stability of liberals who still use the term "chickenhawk" while Barry Hussein is still in office and after the debacle of the Clinton years.

No need to wonder. They're stupid and dishonest people. Period, end of story.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Mitt wants to return to a strategy that's 50 years old against an enemy Obama has on the run. Can you imagine the damage and the cost if Mitt is allowed to carry out his "reckless" policy of "spend, spend, spend" on Military equipment that will never be used?

It’s not surprising Romney pandering to the defense industry and its supporters, never mind the fact the use of conventional force is the least effective way to combat ‘terrorism.’

Does anyone really want Mitt Romney answering the phone in the White House at 3 am?

Does anyone really want Romney rubberstamping a neo-con plan for another illegal invasion?

 

[rightwinger]

When Bush was President, liberals said Drone attacks were illegal.

Really? I don't think they are illegal. In fact, I think the concept of Drones is pretty damn good.

Ignore Frankie....that is just rightwing propaganda

"you opposed it when BOOOoooooosh was president"

 

[Mr. Shaman]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEA4fGBlYDA]The Mitt Romney Remix - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db321Y9u7XE[/ame]​

 

[Katzndogz]

The most effective way to combat terrorism is to prevent it's spread and quarantine it.

Who is going to be the first to prohibit muslim immigration?

 

[rightwinger]

The most effective way to combat terrorism is to prevent it's spread and quarantine it.

Who is going to be the first to prohibit muslim immigration?

Why are you so soft on terrorism?
Why not expand it to incarceration and forced sterilization?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Chickenhawk?

When/where did you and Obama serve, asswipe?

Dean server at Burger King (he couldn't pass the entrance exam for McDonald's).

So you can't discredit what I said so you try to discredit me personally.

Hmmm, didn't see that one coming.

Just kidding. I understand it's typical for your kind.

What kind is that? The kind with a functioning brain?

You're such a tard I don't ever bother reading your posts anymore. I just stop by long enough to pee on your leg and neg you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Romney: Reinforcing alliance's military might is vital - chicagotribune.com

In a post-Cold War world, territorial defense of Europe is no longer NATO's one overriding mission. Instead, the alliance has evolved to uphold security interests in distant theaters, as in Afghanistan and Libya. Yet through all the changes to the global landscape, two things have remained constant about the alliance. For it to succeed, it requires strong American leadership. And it also requires that member states carry their own weight.

In recent years, neither requirement has been sufficiently met.

----------------------------------------------

Duh!! Does this guy have a "clue" the economic crisis tearing though Europe? And he thinks they don't spend enough money on the military because we are being threatened by, uh, by who? al Qaeda? How many battleships does al Qaeda have?

Romney says Obama isn't leading yet, now, the rest of NATO, under Obama's leadership, are stepping up their own "drone attacks".

And how successful have they been?

But while the al-Qaida leader plotted the downfall of the US, he was forced to acknowledge that American drone attacks were taking a toll on his followers in Afghanistan and Pakistan's Waziristan region, and to contemplate withdrawing forces. He wrote:

And what does Mitt say?

This is reckless. We have a military inventory composed of weapons designed 40 to 50 years ago. The average age of our tanker aircraft is 47 years, of strategic bombers 34 years. Our Air Force, which had 82 fighter squadrons at the end of the Cold War, has been reduced to 39 today. TheU.S. Navy, at 285 ships, is at levels not seen since 1916.

Mitt wants to return to a strategy that's 50 years old against an enemy Obama has on the run. Can you imagine the damage and the cost if Mitt is allowed to carry out his "reckless" policy of "spend, spend, spend" on Military equipment that will never be used?

Look at what he says:

I will work with the Europeans to advance interoperability of equipment, and a more rational division of labor among national forces to increase their military potential at a moment when the continent is under severe financial strain. And I will exercise leadership on missile defense, cyber capability, energy security and sufficiently mobile forces to make sure that there is never any doubt that the alliance can meet its collective defense obligations.

Mitt Romney telling Europeans how to spend their military money is like Newt Gingrich wanting to speak at the NAACP to tell black Americans what their choices should be. Looking at Red States and their "schools", like Liberty University and Oral Roberts University, as well as their past "successes" in Iraq and Afghanistan and getting Bin Laden, America can't afford anymore Republican "success". The cost is simply too high.

What, exactly, is your beef here? Is it that he is saying the same stupid things Obama is?

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Do I want Mitt Romney answering the phone at the White House at 3:00AM? Oh, hell YES!

I just love it when a liberal tries desperately to use something they are so dead set against, have no clue about, and really wants to do away with, as a reason to vote for Obama. Now that the political hack rdean has spewed the unbelievable crap that he has spewed, lets look at reality, shall we?

Here's our bomber fleet. The B-52 was developed in the very early 1950's. The B-1B was developed and produced in the early 80's (upgraded from the B-1A that Jimmy cancelled). And the B-2 was developed and produced in the late 1990's (but theres only 20 of these). Based upon the number of bombers currently available for each type, the average age of the bomber fleet is over 45 years sunshine. The B-52H (the only variant still flying), because its airframe is over 50 years old, costs approximately $10,555 for every hour that it flys. The B-1B, because it is rapidly approaching the 'designed' max life of its airframe, cost a little over $7,000 per hour to fly. The B-2 actually costs less to fly per hour than each of these (actual amount classified) because it is well within its engineered service life.

Why do we even have bombers? It is based upon something called the "triad." The triad is a concept that states that if you have three independent systems to rely upon, an enemy cannot knock out all three simultaneously, thereby effectively denying you the ability to strike back. If you're going to get 'hit' harder in retaliation than you can hit first, perhaps you'll think twice about making the first move. The legs of our triad is the manned bomber fleet (cruise missles, gavity bombs, etc.), strategic missles (Minuteman III) and the SLBM's (Ohio class nuclear submarines with Poseiden missles). So the question then becomes, "Isn't this a 'cold war' concept that doesn't apply today?" Hardly.

The North Koreans aren't exactly sitting at the peace table wanting to see how they can get a Kia plant in Pyonyang. The Iranians can't seem to hide the chill they get up their leg when they talk about nuking someone with the medium-ranged missle they just got from Pakistan. Russia has just allowed Putin to return to power with his side-kick Medyeved (SP??) and they are rebuilding the northern fleet as fast as they can to return Russia to it's glory. And China has just launched it's first deep-water aircraft carrier that is making the Taiwanese very, very nervous. Not to mention our good friends the Pakistani's who still tingle from the bin Laden take down; works closely with the North Koreans AND the Iranians; and sits at the breakfast table with terrorists from around the globe. Don't forget that because of Barry and the boys, about 20% of our oil comes through the strait of Hormuz. Don't forget the pirates off Somali that take ships at an alarming rate. What happens if they get ahold of a nuke from one of the ships they take?

It is not enough that we have good special operators in the SEALS and Delta. We must have a capable and effective force to protect our interests around the world. The legs of the triad are old and MUST be modernized. NATO is a very good way to ensure that our interests around the world are protected (refer to Poland, the Czech Republic and the Baltic states). The United States MUST lead in this organization, but member nations MUST provide their fair share.

By the way: Props to the President for the drone strikes. Great job and great tactic. Keep them up.

The USAF could have modernized its bomber fleet decades ago. Instead they chose to invest in the B-1 and B-2 programs which were ill suited for conventional missions. The Strategic mission is not as critical as it was in the cold war

In any case, there is no nation that can challenge our air superiority

Really? And that would be when the USAF wanted to build which bomber, but decided not to? The XB-70 Valkyrie? The B-1A? The B-2A? All three cancelled or limited by Democratic presidents AFTER requests were submitted by the USAF. There have been three 'bombers' that have been built since 1960. The FB-111A (since retired after it surpassed it's engineered life span - a tactical bomber for the European theater), the B-1B (100 built by Reagan) and the F-117 (it has a fighter designation - go figure).

You know, your posts are generally well thought out and factual, except for this point in time. The fact is that the USAF has submitted plans for a number of replacement aircraft for that leg of the triad. All of them shot down. The same goes for another leg, the land-based strategic missle. The current missle is the Minuteman III. This missle has internal components from the early 1970's (that was BEFORE the computer chip was invented).

When you race automobiles, you may win a very important race. But if you're going to race again, you don't just keep the same car year after year. If you do, then your competitors will make strides and eventually you'll be lucky if you finish in the top five. With military hardware, it may be lethal to lag behind.

The F-15 Eagle is an air superiority fighter that the left did NOT want to build. They said that the F-4 was completely capable of maintaining the US's lead in this area for a number of years. But, in 1972 the first one rolled off the line (refer to the articles AGAINST this aircraft that can be easily googled). In over 2000 air-to-air encounters with a foe (usually a Soviet or Russian MiG), it has NEVER been shot down. Whether it's been the Israeli's, the Saudi's, or USAF pilots, this aircraft has never fallen in air-to-air combat. Ever. No other aircraft has this record.

Last year, a LtCol in the USAF was flying the very same F-15 aircraft that his FATHER flew. He was on a training mission over Arizona flying straight and level at a relatively slow speed. The airframe for the aircraft failed due to age and literally the F-15 came apart from around him. He had a wife and two little girls. His wingman said that he was looking at the LtCol when the wing closest to him began to vibrate violently and then just fell away, taking a portion of the cockpit with it.

Barry and his boys killed the replacement for this aircraft and this man died. Mitt Romney, like me, does not want American servicemen and women relying on equipment that is 30, 40 or 50 years old. The Chinese have the J-20 which is comprable to the F-22 (the one that Barry killed). To say that we cannot be challenged in air superiority is not realistic.

You're better than this... don't be a talking point parrot.

 

[rightwinger]

Do I want Mitt Romney answering the phone at the White House at 3:00AM? Oh, hell YES!

I just love it when a liberal tries desperately to use something they are so dead set against, have no clue about, and really wants to do away with, as a reason to vote for Obama. Now that the political hack rdean has spewed the unbelievable crap that he has spewed, lets look at reality, shall we?

Here's our bomber fleet. The B-52 was developed in the very early 1950's. The B-1B was developed and produced in the early 80's (upgraded from the B-1A that Jimmy cancelled). And the B-2 was developed and produced in the late 1990's (but theres only 20 of these). Based upon the number of bombers currently available for each type, the average age of the bomber fleet is over 45 years sunshine. The B-52H (the only variant still flying), because its airframe is over 50 years old, costs approximately $10,555 for every hour that it flys. The B-1B, because it is rapidly approaching the 'designed' max life of its airframe, cost a little over $7,000 per hour to fly. The B-2 actually costs less to fly per hour than each of these (actual amount classified) because it is well within its engineered service life.

Why do we even have bombers? It is based upon something called the "triad." The triad is a concept that states that if you have three independent systems to rely upon, an enemy cannot knock out all three simultaneously, thereby effectively denying you the ability to strike back. If you're going to get 'hit' harder in retaliation than you can hit first, perhaps you'll think twice about making the first move. The legs of our triad is the manned bomber fleet (cruise missles, gavity bombs, etc.), strategic missles (Minuteman III) and the SLBM's (Ohio class nuclear submarines with Poseiden missles). So the question then becomes, "Isn't this a 'cold war' concept that doesn't apply today?" Hardly.

The North Koreans aren't exactly sitting at the peace table wanting to see how they can get a Kia plant in Pyonyang. The Iranians can't seem to hide the chill they get up their leg when they talk about nuking someone with the medium-ranged missle they just got from Pakistan. Russia has just allowed Putin to return to power with his side-kick Medyeved (SP??) and they are rebuilding the northern fleet as fast as they can to return Russia to it's glory. And China has just launched it's first deep-water aircraft carrier that is making the Taiwanese very, very nervous. Not to mention our good friends the Pakistani's who still tingle from the bin Laden take down; works closely with the North Koreans AND the Iranians; and sits at the breakfast table with terrorists from around the globe. Don't forget that because of Barry and the boys, about 20% of our oil comes through the strait of Hormuz. Don't forget the pirates off Somali that take ships at an alarming rate. What happens if they get ahold of a nuke from one of the ships they take?

It is not enough that we have good special operators in the SEALS and Delta. We must have a capable and effective force to protect our interests around the world. The legs of the triad are old and MUST be modernized. NATO is a very good way to ensure that our interests around the world are protected (refer to Poland, the Czech Republic and the Baltic states). The United States MUST lead in this organization, but member nations MUST provide their fair share.

By the way: Props to the President for the drone strikes. Great job and great tactic. Keep them up.

The USAF could have modernized its bomber fleet decades ago. Instead they chose to invest in the B-1 and B-2 programs which were ill suited for conventional missions. The Strategic mission is not as critical as it was in the cold war

In any case, there is no nation that can challenge our air superiority

Really? And that would be when the USAF wanted to build which bomber, but decided not to? The XB-70 Valkyrie? The B-1A? The B-2A? All three cancelled or limited by Democratic presidents AFTER requests were submitted by the USAF. There have been three 'bombers' that have been built since 1960. The FB-111A (since retired after it surpassed it's engineered life span - a tactical bomber for the European theater), the B-1B (100 built by Reagan) and the F-117 (it has a fighter designation - go figure).

You know, your posts are generally well thought out and factual, except for this point in time. The fact is that the USAF has submitted plans for a number of replacement aircraft for that leg of the triad. All of them shot down. The same goes for another leg, the land-based strategic missle. The current missle is the Minuteman III. This missle has internal components from the early 1970's (that was BEFORE the computer chip was invented).

When you race automobiles, you may win a very important race. But if you're going to race again, you don't just keep the same car year after year. If you do, then your competitors will make strides and eventually you'll be lucky if you finish in the top five. With military hardware, it may be lethal to lag behind.

The F-15 Eagle is an air superiority fighter that the left did NOT want to build. They said that the F-4 was completely capable of maintaining the US's lead in this area for a number of years. But, in 1972 the first one rolled off the line (refer to the articles AGAINST this aircraft that can be easily googled). In over 2000 air-to-air encounters with a foe (usually a Soviet or Russian MiG), it has NEVER been shot down. Whether it's been the Israeli's, the Saudi's, or USAF pilots, this aircraft has never fallen in air-to-air combat. Ever. No other aircraft has this record.

Last year, a LtCol in the USAF was flying the very same F-15 aircraft that his FATHER flew. He was on a training mission over Arizona flying straight and level at a relatively slow speed. The airframe for the aircraft failed due to age and literally the F-15 came apart from around him. He had a wife and two little girls. His wingman said that he was looking at the LtCol when the wing closest to him began to vibrate violently and then just fell away, taking a portion of the cockpit with it.

Barry and his boys killed the replacement for this aircraft and this man died. Mitt Romney, like me, does not want American servicemen and women relying on equipment that is 30, 40 or 50 years old. The Chinese have the J-20 which is comprable to the F-22 (the one that Barry killed). To say that we cannot be challenged in air superiority is not realistic.

You're better than this... don't be a talking point parrot.

Sorry....not buying it

The Air Force receives basically the same funding as the other services. In the past five decades they have ignored their bomber and close combat support missions in favor of the sexier strategic mission. The world has changed and the Air Force ended up preparing for the wrong war. The F-111, B-1 and B-2 were wastes of money that could have been better spent elsewhere

The Air Force needs to restructure its force to more closely support the actual threat. That means more money for tankers, transports, combat support and conventional bombing

No nation on earth is close to competing with us for air superiority and to sell China as the next boogie man doesn't cut it

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

The USAF could have modernized its bomber fleet decades ago. Instead they chose to invest in the B-1 and B-2 programs which were ill suited for conventional missions. The Strategic mission is not as critical as it was in the cold war

In any case, there is no nation that can challenge our air superiority

Really? And that would be when the USAF wanted to build which bomber, but decided not to? The XB-70 Valkyrie? The B-1A? The B-2A? All three cancelled or limited by Democratic presidents AFTER requests were submitted by the USAF. There have been three 'bombers' that have been built since 1960. The FB-111A (since retired after it surpassed it's engineered life span - a tactical bomber for the European theater), the B-1B (100 built by Reagan) and the F-117 (it has a fighter designation - go figure).

You know, your posts are generally well thought out and factual, except for this point in time. The fact is that the USAF has submitted plans for a number of replacement aircraft for that leg of the triad. All of them shot down. The same goes for another leg, the land-based strategic missle. The current missle is the Minuteman III. This missle has internal components from the early 1970's (that was BEFORE the computer chip was invented).

When you race automobiles, you may win a very important race. But if you're going to race again, you don't just keep the same car year after year. If you do, then your competitors will make strides and eventually you'll be lucky if you finish in the top five. With military hardware, it may be lethal to lag behind.

The F-15 Eagle is an air superiority fighter that the left did NOT want to build. They said that the F-4 was completely capable of maintaining the US's lead in this area for a number of years. But, in 1972 the first one rolled off the line (refer to the articles AGAINST this aircraft that can be easily googled). In over 2000 air-to-air encounters with a foe (usually a Soviet or Russian MiG), it has NEVER been shot down. Whether it's been the Israeli's, the Saudi's, or USAF pilots, this aircraft has never fallen in air-to-air combat. Ever. No other aircraft has this record.

Last year, a LtCol in the USAF was flying the very same F-15 aircraft that his FATHER flew. He was on a training mission over Arizona flying straight and level at a relatively slow speed. The airframe for the aircraft failed due to age and literally the F-15 came apart from around him. He had a wife and two little girls. His wingman said that he was looking at the LtCol when the wing closest to him began to vibrate violently and then just fell away, taking a portion of the cockpit with it.

Barry and his boys killed the replacement for this aircraft and this man died. Mitt Romney, like me, does not want American servicemen and women relying on equipment that is 30, 40 or 50 years old. The Chinese have the J-20 which is comprable to the F-22 (the one that Barry killed). To say that we cannot be challenged in air superiority is not realistic.

You're better than this... don't be a talking point parrot.

Sorry....not buying it

The Air Force receives basically the same funding as the other services. In the past five decades they have ignored their bomber and close combat support missions in favor of the sexier strategic mission. The world has changed and the Air Force ended up preparing for the wrong war.

The Air Force needs to restructure its force to more closely support the actual threat. That means more money for tankers, transports, combat support and conventional bombing

No nation on earth is close to competing with us for air superiority and to sell China as the next boogie man doesn't cut it

Those statements don't make any sense. "Ignored their bomber and close combat support missions?" How do you ignore something when your requests are killed? The F-16 was built along with the FA-18 specifically BECAUSE they were good at close air support and tactical bombing. You build an aircraft that has multiple roles to get the most bang for the buck. Not one that has a single role (think B-47 or B-58 here). The B-52 is GREAT at conventional (carpet) bombing as well as being a strategic platform. So is the B-1B and the B-2. But the B-52, and soon the B-1B, has to be replaced.

"The Air Force receives basically the same funding as the other branches?" It receives what it asks for and what is approved. In actuality, I believe the Air Force receives more than the others due to it's role in space, strategic defense, early warning, and other areas. If it needs to replace an aircraft that fills certain roles, it can only replace them IF that funding is approved. If that line is removed from the budget by Congress OR the President, then that program is cancelled (think A-12 here).

You can't believe that terrorism or small theater action is going to be the ONLY threat from here on out. You must prepare for every contingency. China may be in a position at this point in time where action to take Taiwan is unthinkable. Why would they poison such a rich trading position with us? But, 10 years down the road what happens if someone else decides that military action is desirable? And if China decides that the J-20 is available to other nations, we will probably find ourselves up against that aircraft. It doesn't have to have Chinese pilots.

You're guilty of the same thing you accuse some right-wingers of being. The cold war is over, but as we have seen, the world is a very volatile place. The Soviets are NOT hiding in the closet, but the military, by its very definition, has to be prepared for whom ever may be hiding in the closet. Whether that is Al Queda, North Korea, Iran, or some other group of nuts yet defined, strategic as well as tactical action is possible and our ability to respond is at stake.

 

[rightwinger]

Really? And that would be when the USAF wanted to build which bomber, but decided not to? The XB-70 Valkyrie? The B-1A? The B-2A? All three cancelled or limited by Democratic presidents AFTER requests were submitted by the USAF. There have been three 'bombers' that have been built since 1960. The FB-111A (since retired after it surpassed it's engineered life span - a tactical bomber for the European theater), the B-1B (100 built by Reagan) and the F-117 (it has a fighter designation - go figure).

You know, your posts are generally well thought out and factual, except for this point in time. The fact is that the USAF has submitted plans for a number of replacement aircraft for that leg of the triad. All of them shot down. The same goes for another leg, the land-based strategic missle. The current missle is the Minuteman III. This missle has internal components from the early 1970's (that was BEFORE the computer chip was invented).

When you race automobiles, you may win a very important race. But if you're going to race again, you don't just keep the same car year after year. If you do, then your competitors will make strides and eventually you'll be lucky if you finish in the top five. With military hardware, it may be lethal to lag behind.

The F-15 Eagle is an air superiority fighter that the left did NOT want to build. They said that the F-4 was completely capable of maintaining the US's lead in this area for a number of years. But, in 1972 the first one rolled off the line (refer to the articles AGAINST this aircraft that can be easily googled). In over 2000 air-to-air encounters with a foe (usually a Soviet or Russian MiG), it has NEVER been shot down. Whether it's been the Israeli's, the Saudi's, or USAF pilots, this aircraft has never fallen in air-to-air combat. Ever. No other aircraft has this record.

Last year, a LtCol in the USAF was flying the very same F-15 aircraft that his FATHER flew. He was on a training mission over Arizona flying straight and level at a relatively slow speed. The airframe for the aircraft failed due to age and literally the F-15 came apart from around him. He had a wife and two little girls. His wingman said that he was looking at the LtCol when the wing closest to him began to vibrate violently and then just fell away, taking a portion of the cockpit with it.

Barry and his boys killed the replacement for this aircraft and this man died. Mitt Romney, like me, does not want American servicemen and women relying on equipment that is 30, 40 or 50 years old. The Chinese have the J-20 which is comprable to the F-22 (the one that Barry killed). To say that we cannot be challenged in air superiority is not realistic.

You're better than this... don't be a talking point parrot.

Sorry....not buying it

The Air Force receives basically the same funding as the other services. In the past five decades they have ignored their bomber and close combat support missions in favor of the sexier strategic mission. The world has changed and the Air Force ended up preparing for the wrong war.

The Air Force needs to restructure its force to more closely support the actual threat. That means more money for tankers, transports, combat support and conventional bombing

No nation on earth is close to competing with us for air superiority and to sell China as the next boogie man doesn't cut it

Those statements don't make any sense. "Ignored their bomber and close combat support missions?" How do you ignore something when your requests are killed? The F-16 was built along with the FA-18 specifically BECAUSE they were good at close air support and tactical bombing. You build an aircraft that has multiple roles to get the most bang for the buck. Not one that has a single role (think B-47 or B-58 here). The B-52 is GREAT at conventional (carpet) bombing as well as being a strategic platform. So is the B-1B and the B-2. But the B-52, and soon the B-1B, has to be replaced.

"The Air Force receives basically the same funding as the other branches?" It receives what it asks for and what is approved. In actuality, I believe the Air Force receives more than the others due to it's role in space, strategic defense, early warning, and other areas. If it needs to replace an aircraft that fills certain roles, it can only replace them IF that funding is approved. If that line is removed from the budget by Congress OR the President, then that program is cancelled (think A-12 here).

You can't believe that terrorism or small theater action is going to be the ONLY threat from here on out. You must prepare for every contingency. China may be in a position at this point in time where action to take Taiwan is unthinkable. Why would they poison such a rich trading position with us? But, 10 years down the road what happens if someone else decides that military action is desirable? And if China decides that the J-20 is available to other nations, we will probably find ourselves up against that aircraft. It doesn't have to have Chinese pilots.

You're guilty of the same thing you accuse some right-wingers of being. The cold war is over, but as we have seen, the world is a very volatile place. The Soviets are NOT hiding in the closet, but the military, by its very definition, has to be prepared for whom ever may be hiding in the closet. Whether that is Al Queda, North Korea, Iran, or some other group of nuts yet defined, strategic as well as tactical action is possible and our ability to respond is at stake.

I've worked for the DoD for over 30 years and know what we buy and why. I came in after Viet Nam and worked through the end of the cold war up to today. The threat just isn't there anymore to justify our military expenditures. We have a military bigger than the next ten countries combined and eight of those ten are allies

We just can't afford the military strength we now have and can't justify it based on current threat and opponents military capability. All of our forces need to have reasonable missions reestablished and the money saved needs to go to pay down our debt

 

[Catalist]

When faced with reelection, Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama all said basically the same thing. "It is easy to shout advice about foreign policy from the sidelines in an election campaign, but when you are POTUS, you consider the potential death of every American soldier your personal responsibility."

President Obama has finally figured out "hands on" to foreign policy. He got us out of Iraq as promised. Now he is winding down Afghanistan as promised. Switch Obama for another novice? Foreign policy is not the reason to switch to Romney. Republicans have nothing to sell us indys here. Osama Bin Laden is dead, score for President Obama. Politicians and poster need to realize that all the noise in the world does not change the facts. Sometimes one party is the winner, sometimes it is the other. American voters are not as stupid as political campaign managers think.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Sorry....not buying it

The Air Force receives basically the same funding as the other services. In the past five decades they have ignored their bomber and close combat support missions in favor of the sexier strategic mission. The world has changed and the Air Force ended up preparing for the wrong war.

The Air Force needs to restructure its force to more closely support the actual threat. That means more money for tankers, transports, combat support and conventional bombing

No nation on earth is close to competing with us for air superiority and to sell China as the next boogie man doesn't cut it

Those statements don't make any sense. "Ignored their bomber and close combat support missions?" How do you ignore something when your requests are killed? The F-16 was built along with the FA-18 specifically BECAUSE they were good at close air support and tactical bombing. You build an aircraft that has multiple roles to get the most bang for the buck. Not one that has a single role (think B-47 or B-58 here). The B-52 is GREAT at conventional (carpet) bombing as well as being a strategic platform. So is the B-1B and the B-2. But the B-52, and soon the B-1B, has to be replaced.

"The Air Force receives basically the same funding as the other branches?" It receives what it asks for and what is approved. In actuality, I believe the Air Force receives more than the others due to it's role in space, strategic defense, early warning, and other areas. If it needs to replace an aircraft that fills certain roles, it can only replace them IF that funding is approved. If that line is removed from the budget by Congress OR the President, then that program is cancelled (think A-12 here).

You can't believe that terrorism or small theater action is going to be the ONLY threat from here on out. You must prepare for every contingency. China may be in a position at this point in time where action to take Taiwan is unthinkable. Why would they poison such a rich trading position with us? But, 10 years down the road what happens if someone else decides that military action is desirable? And if China decides that the J-20 is available to other nations, we will probably find ourselves up against that aircraft. It doesn't have to have Chinese pilots.

You're guilty of the same thing you accuse some right-wingers of being. The cold war is over, but as we have seen, the world is a very volatile place. The Soviets are NOT hiding in the closet, but the military, by its very definition, has to be prepared for whom ever may be hiding in the closet. Whether that is Al Queda, North Korea, Iran, or some other group of nuts yet defined, strategic as well as tactical action is possible and our ability to respond is at stake.

I've worked for the DoD for over 30 years and know what we buy and why. I came in after Viet Nam and worked through the end of the cold war up to today. The threat just isn't there anymore to justify our military expenditures. We have a military bigger than the next ten countries combined and eight of those ten are allies

We just can't afford the military strength we now have and can't justify it based on current threat and opponents military capability. All of our forces need to have reasonable missions reestablished and the money saved needs to go to pay down our debt

We just can't afford it.........

Maybe if congress stopped blowing OUR fucking money on bullshit we could. Cut the nonsense THEN AND ONLY THEN should we consider cuts to our military.

Period, end of story.....unless you're a lib wackjob

 

[rightwinger]

Those statements don't make any sense. "Ignored their bomber and close combat support missions?" How do you ignore something when your requests are killed? The F-16 was built along with the FA-18 specifically BECAUSE they were good at close air support and tactical bombing. You build an aircraft that has multiple roles to get the most bang for the buck. Not one that has a single role (think B-47 or B-58 here). The B-52 is GREAT at conventional (carpet) bombing as well as being a strategic platform. So is the B-1B and the B-2. But the B-52, and soon the B-1B, has to be replaced.

"The Air Force receives basically the same funding as the other branches?" It receives what it asks for and what is approved. In actuality, I believe the Air Force receives more than the others due to it's role in space, strategic defense, early warning, and other areas. If it needs to replace an aircraft that fills certain roles, it can only replace them IF that funding is approved. If that line is removed from the budget by Congress OR the President, then that program is cancelled (think A-12 here).

You can't believe that terrorism or small theater action is going to be the ONLY threat from here on out. You must prepare for every contingency. China may be in a position at this point in time where action to take Taiwan is unthinkable. Why would they poison such a rich trading position with us? But, 10 years down the road what happens if someone else decides that military action is desirable? And if China decides that the J-20 is available to other nations, we will probably find ourselves up against that aircraft. It doesn't have to have Chinese pilots.

You're guilty of the same thing you accuse some right-wingers of being. The cold war is over, but as we have seen, the world is a very volatile place. The Soviets are NOT hiding in the closet, but the military, by its very definition, has to be prepared for whom ever may be hiding in the closet. Whether that is Al Queda, North Korea, Iran, or some other group of nuts yet defined, strategic as well as tactical action is possible and our ability to respond is at stake.

I've worked for the DoD for over 30 years and know what we buy and why. I came in after Viet Nam and worked through the end of the cold war up to today. The threat just isn't there anymore to justify our military expenditures. We have a military bigger than the next ten countries combined and eight of those ten are allies

We just can't afford the military strength we now have and can't justify it based on current threat and opponents military capability. All of our forces need to have reasonable missions reestablished and the money saved needs to go to pay down our debt

We just can't afford it.........

Maybe if congress stopped blowing OUR fucking money on bullshit we could. Cut the nonsense THEN AND ONLY THEN should we consider cuts to our military.

Period, end of story.....unless you're a lib wackjob

We are asking Americans to make do with less so that we can maintain a military force that far exceeds existing threat.

Who is the current boogeyman? Terrorists? China? North Korea?

None are a threat to the degree we are prepared to fight them

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I've worked for the DoD for over 30 years and know what we buy and why. I came in after Viet Nam and worked through the end of the cold war up to today. The threat just isn't there anymore to justify our military expenditures. We have a military bigger than the next ten countries combined and eight of those ten are allies

We just can't afford the military strength we now have and can't justify it based on current threat and opponents military capability. All of our forces need to have reasonable missions reestablished and the money saved needs to go to pay down our debt

We just can't afford it.........

Maybe if congress stopped blowing OUR fucking money on bullshit we could. Cut the nonsense THEN AND ONLY THEN should we consider cuts to our military.

Period, end of story.....unless you're a lib wackjob

We are asking Americans to make do with less so that we can maintain a military force that far exceeds existing threat.

Who is the current boogeyman? Terrorists? China? North Korea?

None are a threat to the degree we are prepared to fight them

Obama

 

[Charles_Main]

Chickenhawk?

When/where did you and Obama serve, asswipe?

It's not just about having been in the military.

Obama has made the difficult decisions. He got rid of a brutal dictator in Libya without the cost of a single American life. He has al Qaeda on the run. He has NATO following his lead. He isn't screaming for more and more military (so he can give contracts to his friends).

Worst of all, he doesn't have 5 sons of military age who he says are already serving the country by helping him get elected president.

Romney has no guts and no glory.

Obama has both. Even though Republicans say he has none of one and try to take credit for the other. But then they've become a really dirty party. In it for the power and not for the country.

It depends on the what the meaning of Is is. right.

OMG SHUT FUCK UP you hypocritical loser.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Leftwingers want to wait till were attacked to build a military capable of responding in kind.

The native Americans had a similar philosophy.

Idiots

 

[rightwinger]

Leftwingers want to wait till were attacked to build a military capable of responding in kind.

The native Americans had a similar philosophy.

Idiots

Mainland US has not been invaded in 200 years

 

[rdean]

Romney has no guts and no glory.

And you served when/where, assbrain?

Headquarters Battery, 3rd Battalion, 16th Field Artillery, 8th Infantry Division, Baumholder, Germany

82C - Forward Observer

S2 - Military Intelligence

But I'm not sure what that has to do with Mitt Romney being a ChickenHawk. The guy's a total pussy. He needed to get 5 guys to hold down a single shy, gay kid so he could "cut his hair"? I know a gay guy who cuts hair. Thought it weird that Mitt does to.

Did any of you right wingers do that? Get 5 guys to hold down a single kid so you could "do something to him"? And then he lied about it. 6 guys remembered but Mitt forgot? He forgot? What a pussy. Can't take any responsibility. Course, the Republican Party is famous for avoiding responsibility.