Why do you think this country needs more invested in the Military.

[jbander]

We had contained Iraq for ten years.

We invaded because of an exaggerated threat claim from the Bush administration

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
- President Clinton in 1998 “

[…], when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world", and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.”
- President Clinton , Jan. 27, 1998 – State of the Union

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 .

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqis nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”

“Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.”

“Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”
- President Bill Clinton, Dec. 16, 1998


"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."
- Madeline Albright, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "

Update: September 8, 2005 - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser was sentenced to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them..

[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 .

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 .

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 .


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 .

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 .

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 .

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 .

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003" (Currently President Barack Hussein Obama’s Secretary of State)

I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Saddam is gone and good riddance," former President Bill Clinton said yesterday, but he urged President Bush to resist trying to get even with nations that opposed the war.

"There are German and French soldiers in Afghanistan today. Does the President want them to come home?" Clinton said at a Manhattan forum on corporate integrity.
Democrats on Iraq + WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction)



He [President Clinton] praised Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for their handling of the war, but said Bush should have waited longer before attacking for the "chance that either [Saddam Hussein] would have disarmed or . . . we would have had far more members of the Security Council with us."

Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found

"I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. . . . That is what I was always told," Clinton said.

- Former President Clinton Wednesday, April 16, 2003

"Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration" The vice president said he’d been to Iraq 17 times and visits the country every three months or so. "I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society" he said. "It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."

- Vice President Joe Biden (D) Feb. 10, 2010

How has the war President Barack Hussein Obama said we SHOULD have been fighting going? How is the Middle East going now that President Obama is President? Oh, Afghanistan just crossed 2,330 American fatalities. Seventy percent of whom died since President Obama took office.

Boy that's a long list of nothing. The only thing that most of your list and also me, I may add did wrong , was believing the lie, one of the biggest lie in our history That our President at the time created for his own personal gain and Cheney's personal gain.
Weapons of mass destruction didn'yt exist when we went there exactly as we were told but I know dam well in the past that they had them because Reagan gave them thousands of tons of these nerve gasses and sent them people to teach them how to make it , While Iraq was Fighting Iran. So you ignorant bastards, Iraq got the ones they used in Iran and that we were afraid of them having from Reagan. Possibly the worst president this country has had.
I'll repeat myself ,Simply look up Code name Curve ball he was Bushes Iraq insider that they listened to. That this massive big lie was created from. And I will also guaranty that it will prove what a idiot this guy is also.

 

[jbander]

Not as large as the 8000 we lost retaliating

Neither we nor they are anywhere near done with the war on terror yet nor should we be.

AARP member

Armed
And
Really
Pissed

I too am an AARP Member - armed and quite POd that we've surrendered our governance to a Gaggle of Birthers, Baggers & Blowhards -

YOU amongst[/QUOTE] The anthem of a Gun Bubba, threaten the world with your silly guns , I will guaranty that you have a better chance of shooting yourself in the ass then use it to protect yourselve

 

[MikeK]

There has been no time in our history when a elected president was supported by the white supremacists , the Nazi party and the KKK. Until now , they should be proud of themselves.

There is a reason for that perception. White Americans, not Nazi, not KKK, or "supremacists." Just ordinary White Americans have become increasingly conscious of an evolving threat

 

[rightwinger]

Iraq had long since left Kuwait
The Taliban never attacked us.....that was AlQaida

Both wars were unprovoked

Just living in your fantasy world, aren't you?

From someone who deals with alternative facts

 

[rightwinger]

We had contained Iraq for ten years.

We invaded because of an exaggerated threat claim from the Bush administration

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
- President Clinton in 1998 “

[…], when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world", and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.”
- President Clinton , Jan. 27, 1998 – State of the Union

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 .

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqis nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”

“Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.”

“Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”
- President Bill Clinton, Dec. 16, 1998


"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."
- Madeline Albright, 1998 Clinton Secretary of State

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "

Update: September 8, 2005 - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser was sentenced to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them..

[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 .

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 .

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 .


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 .

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 .

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 .

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 .

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003" (Currently President Barack Hussein Obama’s Secretary of State)

I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."
- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Saddam is gone and good riddance," former President Bill Clinton said yesterday, but he urged President Bush to resist trying to get even with nations that opposed the war.

"There are German and French soldiers in Afghanistan today. Does the President want them to come home?" Clinton said at a Manhattan forum on corporate integrity.
Democrats on Iraq + WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction)



He [President Clinton] praised Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for their handling of the war, but said Bush should have waited longer before attacking for the "chance that either [Saddam Hussein] would have disarmed or . . . we would have had far more members of the Security Council with us."

Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found

"I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. . . . That is what I was always told," Clinton said.

- Former President Clinton Wednesday, April 16, 2003

"Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration" The vice president said he’d been to Iraq 17 times and visits the country every three months or so. "I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society" he said. "It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."

- Vice President Joe Biden (D) Feb. 10, 2010

How has the war President Barack Hussein Obama said we SHOULD have been fighting going? How is the Middle East going now that President Obama is President? Oh, Afghanistan just crossed 2,330 American fatalities. Seventy percent of whom died since President Obama took office.

Every one of them based on doctored information provided by Bush

Why didn't you provide Obama's quote
It was quite eloquent

 

[mudwhistle]

The most important function of the government and our tax money is the protection of the people. That is the purpose of our sons and daughters in the military. I would much rather see our money spent for their necessary tools of the trade than thrown away on the foreign aid to peoples who hate us or the study of the mating habits of the fruit fly.

The U.S. is surrounded by peaceful neighbors and two oceans. No nation on earth has the capability of invading us

Our military is used to press our global interests and serve as the worlds policeman. We spend as much on our military as the next eight nations combined and six of those eight are our allies

By investing so much in our military we divert funds that could be used for education, healthcare, modern infrastructure

Bullshit. 1st priority is the freedom of our country and lives of our children. Dead children are notably hard to educate.

The only threat that I've seen to freedom is sitting in the president's chair , their president is a pile of shit. The military is there to protect this country. Maybe you could become the laughing stock of this thread by bringing up something like the Domino effect, some cute name that can be used to call some non existing threat to our borders. that allows you to send out our children to die for corporations interests.

Sorry, but the pile of shit left office last January.

If you want to improve this forum ignore the stupidity that comes out of people like these brain dead, not responding to anything except that they hate you and think your a liar. That is about as interesting as stupidity and as stupid as it gets.
They are a waste of time , they are just a waste period.

Actually, most of your posts are a waste of time....as is this thread.

It's obvious why you want to have a strong military, but you're such a fucking idiot you forgot to take heed to history.

 

[sakinago]

I am always amazed by those who do not have the courage to serve in our Armed Forces. They make themselves feel better by spouting the typical BS.

Good God , he thinks that you have to go into the service to have courage. Follow that logic. I can say what I like because I live in this country and there is only one threat to me being able to say what I want to say and that is the hate party that is in office now.

I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.

Get off your fat ass and help people you think need helping.

Poor in America means your cell phone is an iPhone 5 and your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray

Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.

Someone watches too many movies...

actually I have no doubt that it could happen but I also saw it in a movie I watched. So your both right.

They could cause chaos sure (not to the degree y’all are imagining)...but it needs to be anonymous, so you can’t really fight war that way. Since the country could say stop hacking us or we’ll bomb you, and you can’t do anything about it since you got rid of most of your military, and traded it for hackers.

Your being ridiculous , no one is saying to get rid of most off our military and going there is just saying you are a little confused. You can have all the opinions you want but I also stand by every point I made to you. So don't start rutting around getting ready to attack what I say or anyone else says. My only subject that is black and white with me is politics , the rest , i find interesting and am willing to discuss in a manner much calmer than I'm willing to discuss politics.

Not according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is superior military tech in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having superior tech and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.

IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart. it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value. Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.

Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.

And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.

 

[sakinago]

[QUOTE="jNot according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is superior military tech in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having superior tech and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.

There are key words in your post - Superior Tech

Ground forces and ground strength do NOT represent superior tech. They represent the interests of the military industrial complex. Still waiting to hear which wars we've won quickly with such since WWII. They have only enriched the MIC and we've literally lost every GD one of them.

In my mind, superior tech is a great thing - not more of the same ol' madness.

Untrue and a serious display of ignorance.
Superior technology enabled us to stage two of the quickest and most successful invasions in history in Iraq.

Ya I know about that, Bush the baby killer on the aircraft carrier Proclaiming we had won the war just like your trying to sell here. I have a simple question how long have we been fighting there now. Idiot

Oh god, this is the moment when you know the person in this kind of debate, doesn’t have jack shit. That was a speech given, for the carrier, that did accomplish its mission, and was going back home. Not a declaration of winning the war...this was painfully obvious, but no one actually listened to the speech, they just read the misleading headlines that “bush declared mission accomplished,” that leave out the whole part that it was mission accomplished for the carrier crew...on the very same carrier that the speech was directed to.

 

[rightwinger]

The key is that the F 35 can see you long before you can see it and fire a missile

Take you out long before you can see it

 

[sakinago]

The key is that the F 35 can see you long before you can see it and fire a missile

Take you out long before you can see it

And f22 does that much much better, f35 isn’t even a fighter, it’s more spy plane, and neither the f22 nor the f35 are completely invisible. You can still find them with the right equipment, the problem with the f35 is that once it’s found, its screwed, say good bye to 85 million dollars. The f22 on the other hand could still take out 18 super hornets, and go into a super cruise, and no one could catch it...which is money well spent on a plane that’s just as stealthy as the f35, and vastly harder to down.

What is the deal with these people complaining about military budgets, but defending the f35, ITS THE MOST EXPENSIVE WEAPON IN HUMAN HISTORY, AND IT DOESNT PREFORM, LET ALONE ISNT EVEN SAFE TO FLY SINCE THEY TEND TO CATCH ON FIRE! We spent over 1 trillion on this tire fire, when we already had a better jet...Goes to show you, they don’t really care about budgets, they care about what their side tells them to care about. Obama torpedoed the f22 for the f35, and all of a sudden the f35 (1 trillion$ so far) is awesome...no principles at all, just more D’s VS R’s BS.

 

[jbander]

There has been no time in our history when a elected president was supported by the white supremacists , the Nazi party and the KKK. Until now , they should be proud of themselves.

There is a reason for that perception. White Americans, not Nazi, not KKK, or "supremacists." Just ordinary White Americans have become increasingly conscious of an evolving threat

To repeat myself ,this is the first time in history that a president was supported by the Nazi Party , the KKK and the white supremacist. The other were simply haters who loved the hate that was spewing from scum Bags mouth. .
During the election for the hate part candidate nomination of Scum Bag, he said the foulest ugliest cruel ,evil, hateful, deprived things and even his competition in the hate party saw that and tried to out scum a scum bag with their own scum from their mouth but that was totally worthless trying to out scum the the king of scum. They would say something hateful and ugly and he would simply puke a higher level of hate out and the hate party just supported him more and more. The more hate spewed out of scum Bag the more you haters supported him.

 

[jbander]

The U.S. is surrounded by peaceful neighbors and two oceans. No nation on earth has the capability of invading us

Our military is used to press our global interests and serve as the worlds policeman. We spend as much on our military as the next eight nations combined and six of those eight are our allies

By investing so much in our military we divert funds that could be used for education, healthcare, modern infrastructure

Bullshit. 1st priority is the freedom of our country and lives of our children. Dead children are notably hard to educate.

The only threat that I've seen to freedom is sitting in the president's chair , their president is a pile of shit. The military is there to protect this country. Maybe you could become the laughing stock of this thread by bringing up something like the Domino effect, some cute name that can be used to call some non existing threat to our borders. that allows you to send out our children to die for corporations interests.

Sorry, but the pile of shit left office last January.

If you want to improve this forum ignore the stupidity that comes out of people like these brain dead, not responding to anything except that they hate you and think your a liar. That is about as interesting as stupidity and as stupid as it gets.
They are a waste of time , they are just a waste period.

Actually, most of your posts are a waste of time....as is this thread.

It's obvious why you want to have a strong military, but you're such a fucking idiot you forgot to take heed to history.

Ya there is no way that history tells the story other then the thousand of our young that have been killed for the bottom line of some corporations, nothing more.
This is you first comment here. It says nothing , it's just a insult , so if you have nothing what kind of person comments like that, someone from the hate party.
By the way, just as a point of interest, why would i care what the enemy of my country thinks about me, in fact the uglier they get is proof positive that I'm on the right track.

 

[Slash]

Honestly I think we are just fine where we are. We are up from our strength in the Clinton Bush era. We are the only military Superpower left.

 

[Slash]

Honestly I think we are just fine where we are. We are up from our strength in the Clinton Bush era.

I am always amazed by those who do not have the courage to serve in our Armed Forces. They make themselves feel better by spouting the typical BS.

Good God , he thinks that you have to go into the service to have courage. Follow that logic. I can say what I like because I live in this country and there is only one threat to me being able to say what I want to say and that is the hate party that is in office now.

I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.

Get off your fat ass and help people you think need helping.

Poor in America means your cell phone is an iPhone 5 and your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray

Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.

actually I have no doubt that it could happen but I also saw it in a movie I watched. So your both right.

They could cause chaos sure (not to the degree y’all are imagining)...but it needs to be anonymous, so you can’t really fight war that way. Since the country could say stop hacking us or we’ll bomb you, and you can’t do anything about it since you got rid of most of your military, and traded it for hackers.

Your being ridiculous , no one is saying to get rid of most off our military and going there is just saying you are a little confused. You can have all the opinions you want but I also stand by every point I made to you. So don't start rutting around getting ready to attack what I say or anyone else says. My only subject that is black and white with me is politics , the rest , i find interesting and am willing to discuss in a manner much calmer than I'm willing to discuss politics.

Not according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is superior military tech in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having superior tech and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.

IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart. it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value. Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.

Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.

And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.

You are using old news there for your position. The P-51 early on was at a severe disadvantage due to a lower powered engine initially. It became arguably the best fighter the US or the world has ever had.

Yes the F35 in early testing struggled in air to air combat. Pilots didn't know how to fly it, and the engineers didn't know how to set it up for them. So they retrained. Pilots learned new things. Engineers learned pilots wanted the nanny controls taken off and let them really push it.

A few months ago the US military held their annual Red Flag training evolution. In air to air combat vs. our legacy fighters, our F16/18's with the best trained pilots in the world in them, the F-35 had a 20:1 kill:loss rate. 20:1 vs. the best thing out there. That's absolutely insane.

A former A-10 pilot who'd moved to the F35 was talking after that event that he took out 5 straight SAM sites within 15 minutes and and him and his wingman were never even targeted.

How crazy is that? We have a plane that against the worlds best air defenses and fighter pilots slips in and just lays devastation and slips out and nobody has a clue where it was.

The pilots were talking about how mission after mission in the exercise they'd keep coming back saying "I can't believe we just did that".

The Navy's Northern Lightning war games came out the same way. I think two quotes by two pilots summed that up well

F-35 pilot. "I couldn't ask for anything better. It's like fighting somebody with their hands tied behind their backs."

Opponent pilot "We just can't see them like they can see us. It can feel like you are out there with a blindfold on."






People talk about gun kills. Remind me what the rate of missile to gun kills in air combat has been the past couple decades. It's like saying todays infantry isn't as good as our Civil War soldiers in the use of Bayonettes.

Off of Syria a couple of F-22's were scrambled to scare off some russian jets operating kinda close to US operations. They didn't know what to do. Usually they would show up and the bad guys would either engage and play some cat and mouse, or turn and run. These guys did nothing, absolutely nothing. The pilots had to close to line of sight range to let them know they were there.

That's the difference we have now in our air superiority. We can't even get them to see us when we want them to. And the the next best weapons in the US are defenseless against them.

 

[jbander]

I am always amazed by those who do not have the courage to serve in our Armed Forces. They make themselves feel better by spouting the typical BS.

Good God , he thinks that you have to go into the service to have courage. Follow that logic. I can say what I like because I live in this country and there is only one threat to me being able to say what I want to say and that is the hate party that is in office now.

I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.

Get off your fat ass and help people you think need helping.

Poor in America means your cell phone is an iPhone 5 and your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray

Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.

actually I have no doubt that it could happen but I also saw it in a movie I watched. So your both right.

They could cause chaos sure (not to the degree y’all are imagining)...but it needs to be anonymous, so you can’t really fight war that way. Since the country could say stop hacking us or we’ll bomb you, and you can’t do anything about it since you got rid of most of your military, and traded it for hackers.

Your being ridiculous , no one is saying to get rid of most off our military and going there is just saying you are a little confused. You can have all the opinions you want but I also stand by every point I made to you. So don't start rutting around getting ready to attack what I say or anyone else says. My only subject that is black and white with me is politics , the rest , i find interesting and am willing to discuss in a manner much calmer than I'm willing to discuss politics.

Not according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is superior military tech in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having superior tech and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.

IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart. it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value. Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.

Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.

And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.

So you say everyone loves the F-22 not! CDI Combat Critique: Not everyone is convinced. The left-wing CDI believes the F-22’s performance will be subpar-Limited Weapon Set:-Low Usefulness in “Small Wars-“The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22’s predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.”- It's a Maintenance & Readiness disaster. The f-22 program goes back further then the F-35 a comparison will be what will the F-35 be like at the same age as the F-22 now. The F-22 has nowhere near the capability as the f-35. Other then Dog fighting the f-22 is terribly limited.
Since the F-22 has been in service since 2005 it has never been sent to any of our wars during that time. Why?
Just dumping the F-35 to start up the F-22 program again , would leave us with a single dimension weapon.

 

[jbander]

[QUOTE="jNot according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is superior military tech in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having superior tech and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.

There are key words in your post - Superior Tech

Ground forces and ground strength do NOT represent superior tech. They represent the interests of the military industrial complex. Still waiting to hear which wars we've won quickly with such since WWII. They have only enriched the MIC and we've literally lost every GD one of them.

In my mind, superior tech is a great thing - not more of the same ol' madness.

Untrue and a serious display of ignorance.
Superior technology enabled us to stage two of the quickest and most successful invasions in history in Iraq.

Ya I know about that, Bush the baby killer on the aircraft carrier Proclaiming we had won the war just like your trying to sell here. I have a simple question how long have we been fighting there now. Idiot

Oh god, this is the moment when you know the person in this kind of debate, doesn’t have jack shit. That was a speech given, for the carrier, that did accomplish its mission, and was going back home. Not a declaration of winning the war...this was painfully obvious, but no one actually listened to the speech, they just read the misleading headlines that “bush declared mission accomplished,” that leave out the whole part that it was mission accomplished for the carrier crew...on the very same carrier that the speech was directed to.

Fine that shows how little you know about this, considering there was more deaths by both the military and civilian after the Bush the baby killers "mission accomplished " sign. What you say the sign meant is only a opinion. Just like my opinion of what the sign meant is. I love you know it all speech written by your masters. You hear them constantly on these sights. Mono minds being totally controlled.

 

[jbander]

The key is that the F 35 can see you long before you can see it and fire a missile

Take you out long before you can see it

The F-22 can see way farther then the F-35 and has the extended range weapons to use at those distances . The trouble is There is no way we can get by with a one dimensional system. We need the F-35 for its across the board multiple capabilities.

 

[Desperado]

The US needs more investment in its military because we are the world's police/
We have been in a constant state of active war since the 90's with no end in sight.
Our men and machines are getting old and worn and need replacing.
The only thing that will change this is our foreign policy and at this time that seems unlikely.

 

[sakinago]

Honestly I think we are just fine where we are. We are up from our strength in the Clinton Bush era.

I am always amazed by those who do not have the courage to serve in our Armed Forces. They make themselves feel better by spouting the typical BS.

Good God , he thinks that you have to go into the service to have courage. Follow that logic. I can say what I like because I live in this country and there is only one threat to me being able to say what I want to say and that is the hate party that is in office now.

I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.

Get off your fat ass and help people you think need helping.

Poor in America means your cell phone is an iPhone 5 and your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray

Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.

They could cause chaos sure (not to the degree y’all are imagining)...but it needs to be anonymous, so you can’t really fight war that way. Since the country could say stop hacking us or we’ll bomb you, and you can’t do anything about it since you got rid of most of your military, and traded it for hackers.

Your being ridiculous , no one is saying to get rid of most off our military and going there is just saying you are a little confused. You can have all the opinions you want but I also stand by every point I made to you. So don't start rutting around getting ready to attack what I say or anyone else says. My only subject that is black and white with me is politics , the rest , i find interesting and am willing to discuss in a manner much calmer than I'm willing to discuss politics.

Not according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is superior military tech in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having superior tech and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.

IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart. it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value. Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.

Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.

And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.

You are using old news there for your position. The P-51 early on was at a severe disadvantage due to a lower powered engine initially. It became arguably the best fighter the US or the world has ever had.

Yes the F35 in early testing struggled in air to air combat. Pilots didn't know how to fly it, and the engineers didn't know how to set it up for them. So they retrained. Pilots learned new things. Engineers learned pilots wanted the nanny controls taken off and let them really push it.

A few months ago the US military held their annual Red Flag training evolution. In air to air combat vs. our legacy fighters, our F16/18's with the best trained pilots in the world in them, the F-35 had a 20:1 kill:loss rate. 20:1 vs. the best thing out there. That's absolutely insane.

A former A-10 pilot who'd moved to the F35 was talking after that event that he took out 5 straight SAM sites within 15 minutes and and him and his wingman were never even targeted.

How crazy is that? We have a plane that against the worlds best air defenses and fighter pilots slips in and just lays devastation and slips out and nobody has a clue where it was.

The pilots were talking about how mission after mission in the exercise they'd keep coming back saying "I can't believe we just did that".

The Navy's Northern Lightning war games came out the same way. I think two quotes by two pilots summed that up well

F-35 pilot. "I couldn't ask for anything better. It's like fighting somebody with their hands tied behind their backs."

Opponent pilot "We just can't see them like they can see us. It can feel like you are out there with a blindfold on."






People talk about gun kills. Remind me what the rate of missile to gun kills in air combat has been the past couple decades. It's like saying todays infantry isn't as good as our Civil War soldiers in the use of Bayonettes.

Off of Syria a couple of F-22's were scrambled to scare off some russian jets operating kinda close to US operations. They didn't know what to do. Usually they would show up and the bad guys would either engage and play some cat and mouse, or turn and run. These guys did nothing, absolutely nothing. The pilots had to close to line of sight range to let them know they were there.

That's the difference we have now in our air superiority. We can't even get them to see us when we want them to. And the the next best weapons in the US are defenseless against them.

Ok these are old SAMs, not updated for stealth fighters, sure they’ll be just fine against a country like Libya...but it’s almost common knowledge you can still pick up stealth with infrared sensors, and infrared is getting more powerful by the day. You still need a jet that can climb, turn and run when it has too. I have a feeling this red flag training was more publicity stunt, than actual test. If it were an actual test, they’d use 4th gens with infrared sensors, that can spot up to 70km, less than radar sure, but still better than nothing. It just seems very advantageous that the f35 was seeing major problem after major problem, was criticized by trump, trump became president, told them to cut the budget for it, they remove an entire engine...and that somehow fixed the energy problems with the f35??? Doesn’t make sense. Flight isn’t a situation where you can do addition by subtraction of an engine providing energy....seems like a publicity stunt just like the navies new lasers shooting and setting plywood on fire and everyone clapping.

 

[Slash]

I am always amazed by those who do not have the courage to serve in our Armed Forces. They make themselves feel better by spouting the typical BS.

Good God , he thinks that you have to go into the service to have courage. Follow that logic. I can say what I like because I live in this country and there is only one threat to me being able to say what I want to say and that is the hate party that is in office now.

I don't see it personally, it's not even logical or conscienable when the increased funding is from money that is needed to help the needy in this country.

Get off your fat ass and help people you think need helping.

Poor in America means your cell phone is an iPhone 5 and your DVD player doesn't play Blu-Ray

Kiss my ass , I work three days a week volunteering in a homeless shelter and open doors for youth, a organization that helps kids living on the streets I've been involved with these programs for 17 years and what I learned is that you don't have a fucking clew what your talking about , you like the rest of the scum that are in the hate party.

They could cause chaos sure (not to the degree y’all are imagining)...but it needs to be anonymous, so you can’t really fight war that way. Since the country could say stop hacking us or we’ll bomb you, and you can’t do anything about it since you got rid of most of your military, and traded it for hackers.

Your being ridiculous , no one is saying to get rid of most off our military and going there is just saying you are a little confused. You can have all the opinions you want but I also stand by every point I made to you. So don't start rutting around getting ready to attack what I say or anyone else says. My only subject that is black and white with me is politics , the rest , i find interesting and am willing to discuss in a manner much calmer than I'm willing to discuss politics.

Not according to you and doctor love, who think a conventional military will be made obsolete to cyber warfare...that’s the point I’m arguing against. You guys watch too many movies, and don’t really know what hacking is. You also assume the world just stays safe on its own, it doesn’t. What keeps it safe is superior military tech in the hands of a relatively good force that is the US. A much better situation than russia or China being the worlds superpower...not to mention military tech has benefitted humanity greatly. Computers, phones, medicine, flight, space flight, have all either came out of war or have made groundbreaking advancements because of war, or preparing for war. Having superior tech and numbers prevents more wars, serious wars, which are even more costly, and not just in dollars.

IF your going to try to tell me that a military that exists to kill people is good for anything your on the lower eb of the insanity chart. it a commodity that should be used as close to never as possible , you realy know little about this subject, you have a opinion , that is quite ridiculous and totally illogical but you can have it . So we should have a military because why, Medicine , technology, phones, computers . You have to be fucking kidding.
You think we need more f-22 when we have 187 of them and no one else has any Stealth fighters that are be used for anything other then research . next year Russia will start using the su -57 . We in no way need more.when no one else has them. That's just stupid/ Our f-35 will bury anything they have, and that will make up 2300 of our fighters that we fly. The bullshit that These planes are duds like your trying to sell is just not true. There was as many experts like you that said the same thing about the F-22, these take decades to make them show their value. Same experts went after the Tom cats the f-15 and f-16.

Pentagon’s big budget F-35 fighter ‘can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run’
Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight – War Is Boring – Medium
Uh for someone complaining about military budgets, but for some reason you have little problem with the most expensive weapon in history not being able to preform. VS the f22 which the only criticisms about it are the costs...but no one has ever said it doesn’t preform, it preforms off the charts.
Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon » MiGFlug.com Blog
Even in the second article, where talking about the advantage of the typhoon vs raptor in a dogfight...the advantage doesn’t come until after the raptor uses thrust vectoring to score a gun kill, to which the raptor looses energy. After it scores a gun kill...when it comes to modern day air battle, outside of dogfighting, the f22 is vastly superior to the very very best of Europe in the typhoon.

And having a strong military is not for the purpose of killing, that’s what it’s designed to do yes, but its purpose is to prevent war. Very serious and deadly war as we started to see more and more of, and a grander and grander scale up until after WW2. As technology and mobility grew, so did our wars, up until the nuke was designed. Problem is nukes are not enough. Especially now a days, bad actors a very confident that the US won’t use nukes, not without looking like the bad guy. Nukes aren’t enough of a deterrent, things like rail guns, f22s, hypersonic cruise missles, b2s, and b21s are. This is the whole point, the world is extremely safe compared to what it has been. War was one of the biggest killers of man, it no longer is. That is because a largely good force, the US, is the worlds super power. And the bad actors know that they can only get away with smaller conflicts, not large scale ones. Once the US gets involved, it’s game over, at least for large military forces controlled by crazy power hungry people/governments. It’s not ideal that the US carries this burden pretty much alone, but it has stabilized the world in quite the incredible way.

So you say everyone loves the F-22 not! CDI Combat Critique: Not everyone is convinced. The left-wing CDI believes the F-22’s performance will be subpar-Limited Weapon Set:-Low Usefulness in “Small Wars-“The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22’s predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.”- It's a Maintenance & Readiness disaster. The f-22 program goes back further then the F-35 a comparison will be what will the F-35 be like at the same age as the F-22 now. The F-22 has nowhere near the capability as the f-35. Other then Dog fighting the f-22 is terribly limited.
Since the F-22 has been in service since 2005 it has never been sent to any of our wars during that time. Why?
Just dumping the F-35 to start up the F-22 program again , would leave us with a single dimension weapon.

Of course everyone doesn't love it. People are always gonna be pissed about it.

CDI likes the old school, they like the bayonett. I'm not sure what info they are privy too. I can't find anything to see that they have any of the classified information on the capabilities of the F-22. Their reasons for hating the F22 was that it couldn't manouver, can't outnumber the enemy, and couldn't pull off quick shots like some other planes.

Talk about Kill to loss I believe in Northern Edge, it was 144:0 kill to loss in that training exercise. Yeah, it's probably not the best plane to engage line of sight and use it's guns. got it.

The odd thing was you are really saying we aren't using the F22 in action? Remind me, what was the jet that intercepted an Iranian F4 in March of 2013? What jet was dropping hundreds of 1000lb bombs in Syria? What jet is flying sorties as part of Inherent Resolve?

Are you sticking with your point there? because that's just a lie.

Yes they weren't getting a lot of air time. It's a high cost air superiority fighter. That's it's top role. Please explain to me the strength of ISIS and Al Qaeda's air power. We aren't using the best of our smart weapons because we don't need them against an army using small arms and technicals.

We haven't used our Nuclear Missile Subs in any wars lately. Doesn't mean they are worthless. They are probably the #1 weapon in our military!! But they haven't fought the war they are designed to win. We haven't used our Sub Hunters either. Maybe they are worthless. Or maybe Afghanistan and Iraq's navies don't have submarines.