F-22 Production Has Ended

[lqcorsa]

Yesterday President Barack Obama won his fight to end the F-22 Raptor's career of production. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the end of the F-35 as well. :nono:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090721/ap_on_go_co/us_defense_spending

http://www.airforceworld.com/fighter/gfx/f22/f22_1.jpg

[Totty]

BIG mistake I think, no-one knows what future wars will be like. The number the US have at the mo is paltry. I also think it would be wise to keep the tooling - but I guess that won't happen either.

Makes me even more glad I saw one at Farnborough last year - it may be a rare site with that number:confused:

[xhaos]

In such financial times to keep feeding millions on an aircraft that has no reason to exist is suicide. this money will serve better the US public in a reform of the health care.

P.S. against who the us will use this uberplane? there isnt any foe any more. and any foe that might came up in the future years peaks out at camel or bamboo stick technology.

I really dont want to make this a political thread, unless others wish also ;)
I think its a very good move for the good of the people. Lets start thinking space again people. its a far more noble cause to devote to.

P.P.S.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

[heartburn]

In such financial times to keep feeding millions on an aircraft that has no reason to exist is suicide. this money will serve better the US public in a reform of the health care.

I am not going to get into a political argument with you but I will say that one of the best ways to put money into the U.S. economy is through government contracts because they pour money directly into American companies.

[Mobius]

F-35 production is actually supposed to increase - I think there were funds for 30 or 40 more jets added, so it's not a total loss. Still, stupid move in my opinion...

[duncan]

Yesterday President Barack Obama won his fight to end the F-22 Raptor's career of production. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the end of the F-35 as well. :nono:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090721/ap_on_go_co/us_defense_spending

http://www.airforceworld.com/fighter/gfx/f22/f22_1.jpg

Yes it, sad new,s about the F22 but with that money can be spent on new up dated F15 and if the F35 get,s dump the can buy the fourth genertion F16 that lookheed martin makes. but A10 is a better close aircraft then The f35 is . It,s not going up set if thay spend money on a new Hog,s:nono::thumb:

[BHawthorne]

In such financial times to keep feeding millions on an aircraft that has no reason to exist is suicide. this money will serve better the US public in a reform of the health care.

You can tell who the Democrats owe political favors to at the moment and apparently it's in wall street and cars, not the aerospace sector. This could actually be considered the aerospace ANTI-stimulus package. It rings in as highly hypocritical considering what has been done in since Obama came into office. They're willing to hemorrhage money at unprecedented levels...but only as kickbacks.

[A.S]

Pitty on one hand...but good sign, that there are no wars in mind :smile:

..but who knows....they already have plenty of them :tongue:

ohh..btw...this one is even more interesting..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html

[Professor Fate]

Yesterday President Barack Obama won his fight to end the F-22 Raptor's career of production. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the end of the F-35 as well. :nono:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090721/ap_on_go_co/us_defense_spending

http://www.airforceworld.com/fighter/gfx/f22/f22_1.jpg

*************

Nah - F-35 is a much more popular program...on both sides of the aisle, and has huge international support. It's actually a much more versatile platform than the F-22...the 22 has a smaller weapons bay and can't handle the larger weapons that the F-35 can. It's not going anywhere.

[xhaos]

Pitty on one hand...but good sign, that there are no wars in mind :smile:

..but who knows....they already have plenty of them :tongue:

ohh..btw...this one is even more interesting..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html

very good read, thank you for sharing!

[SpinKick]

I'm sure the president feels absolutely comfortable knowing he's being escorted by jets that first flew 36+ years ago.

I'm not disputing cost... they're expensive, but what's the going rate for a pilot's life today?

I think it was a bad move. But... hopefully they'll be back in production about in 3 1/2 years. :smile:

[samuel150892]

Its sad news fo us aviation fans but i can see why president Obama has canceled the production of the F22s. At least in the future they can always start making them again.

I cannot see the F35 production being canceled since the RAF and the Navy is replacing all their harriers with the F35.

BTW i have heard the F16, A10 and F18 are being replaced by the F35? Just wondering if this is actually true or not.

[Aardvark]

I love the argument that the F-22 is not necessary because we don't need it in conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan. Well guess what? Iraq and Afghanistan are little side shows that will eventually wind down. Recent history is no reliable indicator of what the future may bring. As a global power the United States needs to be prepared to fight global conventional as well as localized assymetrical type warfare. To do otherwise would be foolish and shortsighted. The F-22 is key for air dominance through the beginning of this century.

[xhaos]

every first year economics student will tell you that to spend money now on something you might need in distant future is......ill advised because you loose things opportunities - investments) you can do with the same money. currently and for next decade at least, air superiority is insured by the fleet US already has, F18s and 15s easily dominate the sky. furthermore airplanes that other countries have can be rendered useless with a simple code transition as it happened with the Argentinian exoset missiles in the Falkland war. In terms of a major MAJOR war, small yield nuclear missiles will prevail all.
and also i can say that with the way technology goes, its short sited to keep expensive airplanes in the sky when UCAVs are the only way of the future, or when laser arrays will be able to shoot anything down with zero exposure. really people we (as a planet) have better things to do, its 40 years we didnt goto the moon, we didnt goto mars, we still dont use nuclear fusion.
Yes i am too in a way sad that this and any other uberplane gets ditched, but we can do better and greater things with 350 million a pop.

P.S. f35 will never get ditched cause it will be exported (a variation of it anyways) so from financial terms it brings money to the US, when the 22 cant be exported due to pricing and security acts.


P.P.S. history shows that ALL empires fell not because of lack of armament, but because of financial and social systems failed. Alexanders, Romes, byzantine, ottoman, Mongols and UK, all collapsed social and financially, not military.

[Force5]

Concerning military contracts helping out our economy, not necessarily. I worked in a machine shop where we made the casings for the targeting systems of .50 cal machine guns ( CROWS ) you see on humvees. Guess where the final contract went. Some Norwegian country! Just another example of our government making bad decisions.

And what's with all this money being spent for space? Sure, some of the research is interesting, but there are way too many other areas in which the money can be better spent.

[AngryDispatcher]

every first year economics student will tell you that to spend money now on something you might need in distant future is......ill advised.

That's why first year economics students (and politicians) have no business dictating the procurement process. Seriously, that's easily the dumbest argument I've EVER heard.

I probably won't need health insurance any time soon, but the government sure is keen on ramming mandatory government-provided health care down my throat... To the tune of $1.4 TRILLION.

Any idea how many F-22's we could have bought with THAT money? Instead, we (Obama) would rather explosively expand the amount of money our government hands out to society's non-contributors (welfare recipients and illegal aliens).


currently and for next decade at least, air superiority is insured by the fleet US already has, F18s and 15s easily dominate the sky.

Fantastic! Tell that to the Eagle drivers who's jets are literally falling apart. Or better yet, tell the KC-135 guys who have to cringe everytime they fly through turbulence, wondering if the wings are going to stay on.

If a new fighter were authorized today, and design work started tomorrow, the first jet wouldn't be delivered to the Air Force for 20 years. So what do to cover that gap?

It's a rhetorical question, of course, because there IS no fighter. And let's not pretend that the F-35 can actually hang with the F-22, or the new Su's or Mig's. It's going to be a bomb truck, just like the F-16 is now.


its short sited to keep expensive airplanes in the sky when UCAVs are the only way of the future

Right. And the F-4 didn't need a gun.


we can do better and greater things with 350 million a pop.

Like ensure that the 54% of the population who don't pay taxes get free healthcare with MY money? Roger.


history shows that ALL empires fell not because of lack of armament, but because of financial and social systems failed.

The Roman empire fell under the weight of debt created by a society that thought itself entitled to government handouts. Politicians promised ever increasing amounts of handouts in order to get re-elected, and once the tipping point had been reached, there was no going back.

People will NEVER vote to have their "freebies" taken away. NEVER. That's why Obama, elected overwhelmingly by those who contribute nothing to society signals the beginning of the downfall of America.

If I remember correctly, those who founded America did so to escape the failings of European socialism and government control. So why is it again that we're so goddamn eager to emulate the very thing we were trying to get away from?

F*ck this. I'm moving to Sweden.

[BHawthorne]

every first year economics student will tell you that to spend money now on something you might need in distant future is......ill advised because you loose things opportunities - investments) you can do with the same money.

Here is the problem with that logic. First year economic students know little more than to parrot their professor's mindset about things, because that's the way they are being hand fed knowledge. What segment of the population is predominant within the academic community? Liberal Democrats...

Building F-22 isn't on the Liberal Democrat handouts agenda right now. My guess is the NASA Moon Program is the next Aerospace project to get ANTI-stimulated. Need I say anything more? :wink2:

[Bogusheadbox]

So what everyone is saying is, bring back into service the gorgeous

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/f4.jpg

Its so sexy that no one would want to attack it dare of scratching its paint.

On a serious note, economics is a tough call. There are good reasons why on both sides for and against procuring such expensive airframes versus funding citizens of a foundering economy.

Who is to say, that when the world economy stabilises, production of the F22 is not resumed.

Isn't the stealth eagle deemed a viable stop gap?

[BHawthorne]

And what's with all this money being spent for space? Sure, some of the research is interesting, but there are way too many other areas in which the money can be better spent.

The total budget NASA has spent EVER is less than the military budget just for Iraq in the last 6 years alone. Let's not be diluted into thinking military spending and NASA spending are anywhere in the same class. Let's also not be diluted into believing NASA is there for science. It's there for aerospace manufacturing.

[Cobra]

in an attempt to get this semi back on topic ....

what other jets could even hope to mix it with the F-22 on the red side?

curious to hear your thoughts on this.

[Playloud]

None. That's why we need it.

[Specter1075]

It is unfortunate that the program has ended, or stopped or whatever, especially as an aviation nut, but my question to everyone here is this: where do you cut funding if not here? The problem is that no matter what program you speak about, there are hundreds of eloquent advocates that can make it seem like the most important thing going. The fact is that the US deficit is monstrous and one way or another will have to be dealt with. Naturally, in a perfect world, it could be dealt with by eliminating the inefficiencies of government, but we all know thats pretty impractical. So again I ask, how does one get control of spending? Its a lose-lose question because no matter where you cut spending, it will be a bad idea for one reason or another.

My opinion is that in order for the deficit to be dealt with now and in the near term, cuts like those to the F-22 program make sense because the future wars everyone speaks of are in the future. Once the deficit is managed and the economy again kicks into high gear, the US can again start spending money on the F-22 or even its successor. The US military reigns supreme in the near to medium term, so now is the time to get spending under control, in my mind, anyway.

[T_Flight]

The reason the deficit is so high and this program is getting canceled is because we have a criminal that went out and blew a trillion dollars of our money on failing companies after he was told not to by the people in charge...US! He then worked his way up to completely bankrupting this country by making it impossible to even repay the interest alone on that debt.

Now, he's working on destroying our Military which this project was an important part.

I'm sorry guys. It is a disgrace what this country has become. I am ashamed that everthing this Country has stood for for over 230 years has basically been abolished (or ignored), while we let a treasonous traitor basically finish off what was left of this Country, and I'm even more ashamed that people didn't do their homework on this nut and elected him in the first place. Unfortunately for those that didn't we are all paying the price for it, but our one saving grace is this... At least it's a good lesson, and it's gonna burn in real good. Everybody is now facing the consequences of that mistake, and we will be for a long long time.

The F22 is just one in a long list losses we will face for a very long time. It will take years and decades to repair the damage this nut caused in less than 90 days. :sad:

[AngryDispatcher]

So again I ask, how does one get control of spending?

Easy.

1) Give the American people back the $1.4 trillion dollars in "stimulus" money the government is going to spend on completely unnecessary pork projects over the next 4 years.

2) Stop the ridiculous push for mandatory healthcare that will cost $2.5 Trillion dollars over the next 10 years, while simultaneously decreasing quality of care, availability of services, and enable the government to refuse the very services they're claiming to be the "right" of every citizen.

How exactly is the US Federal government going to deny procedures and coverage to people it thinks aren't worth the "investment", yet go on Primetime Televesion and proclaim that every citizen has the "right" to health care? It's madness.

3) Undo the ridiculous legislation that is going to create an exchange commodity, where one does not exist: Carbon. "Cap and Trade" is the most ludicrous notion in the history of this country. It will increase costs, reduce competition, and do NOTHING to "save the environment".

4) Return control of the financial sector to the free market, where it belongs.

5) Return ownership of the banks to the free market, where it belongs.

6) Return ownership of the automotive industry to the free market, where it belongs.


Once the deficit is managed and the economy again kicks into high gear, the US can again start spending money on the F-22 or even its successor.

Once it's dead, it's dead. They destroy the jigs and the tooling. There's no resurrection once the line is closed.


The US military reigns supreme in the near to medium term, so now is the time to get spending under control, in my mind, anyway.

You don't need security until the day you need it, and then you needed it yesterday.

September 10th, 2001 was just another normal day, remember? Who knows what tomorrow brings...

[tobyeez]

Profound!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[duncan]

should A10 and f16 be replace

[Playloud]

should A10 and f16 be replace
The F-16 can be replaced by the F-35 when it is ready. I don't think it can replace the A-10 though.

[xhaos]

2) Stop the ridiculous push for mandatory healthcare that will cost $2.5 Trillion dollars over the next 10 years, while simultaneously decreasing quality of care, availability of services, and enable the government to refuse the very services they're claiming to be the "right" of every citizen.


SO what you say is that some deserve to live and some don't, ergo one has the right to decide what group should live and prosper and what group should perish and die. Interesting argument that i have read about in many history books.

[Semipro 388th VFW]

Well 30 hours of maintenance for 1 hr of flight time is not cost effective or combat ready. Defense contractors are notorious for promising the moon only to strap the US taxpayer with huge cost over runs once they secure a contract with the government. The pentagon wanted this program to end and so did Gates the Secretary of Defense. The skin on the F-22 was a real problem that cause huge expense to keep it in the air, looks like the moon was not quite a good as the told the taxpayers.

I have never agreed with the notion that having cutting edge technology was the best bang for the buck for the taxpayers or our national defense strategy. Larger numbers of proven technology and a well trained & supplied force was a much better way to provide for our national defense and interest.

Just my 2 cents

[Shatterer of Worlds]

SO what you say is that some deserve to live and some don't, ergo one has the right to decide what group should live and prosper and what group should perish and die. Interesting argument that i have read about in many history books.

Ironically that is the very argument that is used AGAINST mandatory health care and which AngryDispacher has made. He is NOT saying that some deserve to live and others do not. What he is saying is that if the govt takes over then they will do that even while hypocritically suggesting the opposite. Here in the U.S. the current bill going through the house and senate is undergoing bipartisan opposition because of the possibility that it will increase rather than decrease health care costs, drive out initiative and innovation among doctors who may leave the profession, and take away choice for consumers. Vast government bureaucracys who soke up much of the money will ration care and make many of the decisions of who receives treatment or not. People today who can get a diagnosis and treatment relatively quickly could find themselves having to wait for long periods of time (and end up dying in the process) or find themselves completely denied coverage by the goverment due to age or other considerations.

Right now about 6 out of every 7 people in the US has health insurance and it tends to be relatively solid in its efficiency although there is room for improvement. Those who do not have health insurance must still be treated though it tends to be more expensive (of course) and less efficient. Unfortunately, once the govt takes over and the private insurers are driven out (which is inevitable), our freedoms and liberties in the health care sector will be removed and the govt health bureaucrats will make the decisions for us. Theoretically everyone will be covered but everyone will be covered poorly. We know this because similar systems have been in operation in Britain and Canada and they are having real problems with rationing lines and waiting times. The Massachassetts (sp?) socialized health care system is falling apart at the seams and current govt programs like Medicare and Medicade are a disaster.

There are good reasons why the people of the world tend to come to the US when they need special care or that operation that could save their life. Few leave the US for treatment elsewhere. I'm not saying that we don't need health care reform. We can use it but we need to find ways to allow continuing free market practice so that competition can be maintained, people can choose what kind of plan they want, and freedoms and liberties can be maintained. Current proposed legislation are far too socialized. Other countries may wish to move towards an Orwellian future where the government runs their lives and acts as a parent but we in the US will resist as long as we can. I don't want the government making the decision whether I am young enough or valuable enough to deserve treatment or how long I may have to wait. I suspect that AngryDispacher believes the same.

In short he is saying the following:

1. Mandatory health insurance will cost a LOT... AngryD believes that's a bad thing.
2. Mandatory health insurance will result in decreased quality of care.. AngryD believes that's a bad thing.
3. Mandatory health insurance will decrease availability of services... AngryD believes that's a bad thing.
4. Mandatory health insurance will allow the government to outright decline certain services... AngryD believes that's a bad thing.
5. The government will hypocritically support supposed "rights" by mouth that they will then ignore in practice... AngryD believes that's a bad thing.

Is it no wonder given his line of reasoning that he is opposed to the current proposals?


BTW, Cap and Trade is a giant scam.

[AngryDispatcher]

SO what you say is that some deserve to live and some don't, ergo one has the right to decide what group should live and prosper and what group should perish and die. Interesting argument that i have read about in many history books.

Paul beat me to it, but no, that's not even remotely what I'm saying.

Currently, even those without health insurance are GUARANTEED treatment, even if they can't pay for it.

When the government takes over, however, they're going to have the ability to decide that the hip replacement your 76 year old grandmother needs isn't a "good investment" due to her advanced age.

They'll also be able to decide that your cancer is too tough and expensive to treat, or that it's cheaper to amputate your severly broken leg instead of paying for multiple surgeries, rehabilitation and physical therapy.

THAT is choosing who lives or dies, and there's no way in hell I want the morons in the federal government making those decisions.

[A.S]

I just can say how things are in germany.

EVERYONE has health-care, maybe it be a bussiness selfmade man (he pays himself), normal employees (they pay over the taxes together with age-funds ) or a person who lost his job and gets minimal social finance support INCLUDING health-care.

For what ppl are paying all the taxes ( eta half of income ) if their government can not use this to guarantee the minimum social structures such as healthcare.?

And if grandmas hip is more important then ONE more "free fall bomb (25000$)" ....you may decide if its your grandma...


just saying man.....

[AngryDispatcher]

I just can say how things are in germany.

EVERYONE has health-care, maybe it be a bussiness selfmade man (he pays himself), normal employees (they pay over the taxes together with age-funds ) or a person who lost his job and gets minimal social finance support INCLUDING health-care.

For what ppl are paying all the taxes ( eta half of income ) if their government can not use this to guarantee the minimum social structures such as healthcare.?

And if grandmas hip is more important then ONE more "free fall bomb (25000$)" ....you may decide if its your grandma...


just saying man.....

Europe is a great place...lots of fantastic cultures, and wonderful people.

But America is not Europe, and I'm tired of people trying to make us more "European".

I don't care if France thinks we're arrogant, or if Italy thinks we're not diplomatic enough. No one in Europe gives a crap what Americans think of THEIR countries. So why in the world should we feel obligated to appease the very governments and countries that our founders and citizens once fled from?

America was founded on democracy and capitalism, not socialism, and that is why we have contributed so much to the world during our short existance. They don't call it the "European Dream" do they? No. It's the "American Dream".

What the democrats want for America is to crush it's capitalist system, and move to a more "equitable" common collective. They want to tax rich people into poverty. They want to control entire industries, starting with the banking and auto industries and propably extending to the airlines next. They want to fire private sector employees. They want to restrict salaries. They want to FORCE us to buy health insurance. And they want to spend $15TRILLION dollars to destroy the foundation upon which America grew to such prosperity.

They'll do that without so much as a second thought. But when it comes to spending a mere 1.5 billion to ensure our air supremecy in a no-shit, confrontation with someone with weapons more sophisticated than an RPG, then it's time to raise holy hell about how "wasteful" we're being. UFB!

Just sayin', man.

[A.S]

The only thing, what is a constant, is change !
But change in establishments and got used to comforts often lead to fears.

I do believe in america and american people, for many reasons, even not being an american.
Inbetween alot of black history, events...and conspiracies and companies with non-hollow powers,... yes i do believe in US.

Sometimes, it requires courage, wisdom and wide view......not seeing always the bad sides of things.

Yes we also MUST have health-insurance....MUST ! ...if we cant pay for it...gov will pay for it...but yes...we MUST have it (called "Versicherungspflicht")...and it makes sense.

PS: the common public spirits based in the foundation of USA and the more uncovered things....is another story.

Whatsoever....i just can say....sometimes change is good....and i wish you good luck and succsess..because whenever you guys screw something up, somthing else in the world is in deep shit...lol :tongue:

..or to quote a movie line: " a splitted house cant persist "

Peace

[xhaos]

i am really torn, from one side i really want to keep this up, but from other side i realize its borderline with forum rules etc. So should we drop it or open new thread? It is an interesting conversation, though if we do continue it, 100000% it will became political.

[Specter1075]

September 10th, 2001 was just another normal day, remember? Who knows what tomorrow brings...

True, but that is a poor example because the point of September 11th was that all the might of the US military is completely impotent in a situation like what the terrorists created. A million F-22's wouldn't have stopped that, and what many people are arguing is that the next stage of modern warfare isnt the type that is conventionally fought with large numbers of soldiers, tanks and aircraft. Everyone out there realizes that you cant defeat the US that way.

Regardless of who we speak about, they will seek to fight in a way that exploits weaknesses. Look at the incidences of cyber attack. Look at the vulnerabilities that still exist at and near major infrastructure, such as nuclear power plants, and LNG storage areas. Should the US continue to build up its strength in areas where it is already strong or start addressing the many vulnerabilities that exist and are waiting to be exploited?

[Buckshot]

i am really torn, from one side i really want to keep this up, but from other side i realize its borderline with forum rules etc. So should we drop it or open new thread? It is an interesting conversation, though if we do continue it, 100000% it will became political.

I have no issues with the debate so far, while it touches on politics, it's not along the lines of your country/politics are wrong mine is right, so I'm happy to let it go as long as it stays as a healthy debate/discussion on spending etc, which loosely relates to the topic of this thread.

[AngryDispatcher]

True, but that is a poor example because the point of September 11th was that all the might of the US military is completely impotent in a situation like what the terrorists created.

My point was that we can be taken by surprise at any time.

To sit here today and say that a "conventional" confrontation with China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, etc. is so unlikely that we shouldn't be prepared for it, is the same as someone saying, on September 10th, 2001, that 767's flying into buildings is so unlikely that we don't need to prepare for it.

Clearly, we did need to prepare for it. The fact that we did not is what cost thousands of innocent lives that day.

We KNOW that Russia wants to challenge our primacy as a global military power. We KNOW that China is interested in challenging our primacy as a global financial power. We KNOW that North Korea is interested in challenging our influence on the peninsula. We KNOW that Iran wants a nuclear weapon to destroy Israel, and to challenge our influence in the Middle East. And there are plenty of others rooting for us to fail.

Care to take a guess how effective our Vipers and Hogs are going to be in any of those environments without total air dominance, and against double-digit SAM systems?

We're compromising our future security and ability to protect our interests around the globe. Plain and simple.

But hey, it's okay, because all of the money that we would've spent to replace our 50 year old -135's, 50 year old BUFF's, and 35 year old Eagles, we can now give to the free-loading welfare recipients. Hooray!

[Specter1075]

I think you greatly over estimate the airforces of Russia and North Korea, especially considering we are talking about fewer F-22s, not none. Secondly, is the F-22 a replacement for 135's and B-52s? My point is that like it or not, your spending is completely bananas and you have to make cuts. That's just the way it goes. You can prepare for a war that may never come, but at what cost? Will every American be happy knowing the military will protect them from China if they are unemployed and starving? What about education? All Im saying is that you have to live within your means, and even if I agree to everything you said and decide that the F-22 is the most vital US military project going, you arnt really providing me with any kind of realistic way of getting spending under control.

Honestly, I kinda wonder about the whole mentality that makes countries with competing interests enemies. Russia has as much a right to desire influence in the areas of the Former Soviet Union as does the United States. That doesnt make them the bad guy, especially when the US government is willing to overlook the questionable things that happen in Kyrgyzstan and then fault Russia for those same things, with the difference being a US airbase in the former. I digress, but I find it odd that Russia is the up and coming enemy for so many people. Old habits die hard, I guess. (I know it goes both ways, too)

[AngryDispatcher]

I think you greatly over estimate the airforces of Russia and North Korea.

I'll save my technical argument against your assertion, and instead I'll ask you this question:

Has anyone ever lost a conflict due to over-estimating an enemy's capabilities?


Secondly, is the F-22 a replacement for 135's and B-52s?

Of course not. But like the F-22, the new bomber program was sacrificed in order to pay for Obama's initiatives, and the KC-X isn't getting the attention it deserves because Gates is too busy gutting the Air Force to notice the dire need for new tankers.


My point is that like it or not, your spending is completely bananas and you have to make cuts. That's just the way it goes.

You're absolutely right. We need to cut spending on socialist programs that run contrary to the spirit of America, not on defense programs that employ hundreds of thousands of Americans in high-paying long-term jobs.


you arnt really providing me with any kind of realistic way of getting spending under control.

I just did. Stop spending TRILLIONS of dollars (that we don't have) on a "stimulus" that doesn't stimulate anything.

And since when do we have to convince the delegation from Canada about our defense spending?


Honestly, I kinda wonder about the whole mentality that makes countries with competing interests enemies. Russia has as much a right to desire influence in the areas of the Former Soviet Union as does the United States.

Well, it's the reality. So you can question the reality all you want, but you'll just be left scratching your head when things don't live up to the Utopian fantasy that some people like to believe exists.


That doesnt make them the bad guy...

Say what you want, but there was a "good" side and a "bad" side of tje Cold War. We were on the "good" side.

It was the other side that oppressed its people, censored its press, enslaved nations, and gobbled up Eastern European real estate.

You go ahead and keep thinking that we're all going to get along, for ever and ever. We'll see how well that works out in the end.

[Specter1075]

What technical argument could you make about the Russian airforce? I assure you that my "assertion" is far more educated than a simple guess.

To argue that the stimus packages arnt working is largely theoretical. There are experts who say it isnt working, and still others who say it does. You cant know that in the absence of them that life would be better. Perhaps you are correct, but it is not a foregone conclusion.

Im not talking about a utopia where everyone loves everyone. Im talking about the hypocrisy that the US is an ultimate force for good when its record is as shady as anyone else. Does that mean that the US is a force of evil? Not at all. Comparing the Soviet Union of 50 years ago to Russia now is beyond ignorant. I am not saying the US is a force for evil in the world, but its record is not better than that of Russia. You cant tell me that Russia's interest in parts of the world is more negative than that of the US. Often times, the US and Russia are competing for the very same thing in those regions. How then can you say one is right and the other is wrong?


And what difference does it make that Im Canadian? If you think you have the right to police the world, then the rest of the world has the right to an opinion. I never mentioned my country at all, but I find it comical that you think you are above speaking to a lowly Canadian on a forum where your power is as meaningless and non existent as my own.

[AngryDispatcher]

What technical argument could you make about the Russian airforce? I assure you that my "assertion" is far more educated than a simple guess.

To argue that the stimus packages arnt working is largely theoretical. There are experts who say it isnt working, and still others who say it does. You cant know that in the absence of them that life would be better. Perhaps you are correct, but it is not a foregone conclusion.

Im not talking about a utopia where everyone loves everyone. Im talking about the hypocrisy that the US is an ultimate force for good when its record is as shady as anyone else. Does that mean that the US is a force of evil? Not at all. Comparing the Soviet Union of 50 years ago to Russia now is beyond ignorant. I am not saying the US is a force for evil in the world, but its record is not better than that of Russia. You cant tell me that Russia's interest in parts of the world is more negative than that of the US. Often times, the US and Russia are competing for the very same thing in those regions. How then can you say one is right and the other is wrong?


And what difference does it make that Im Canadian? If you think you have the right to police the world, then the rest of the world has the right to an opinion. I never mentioned my country at all, but I find it comical that you think you are above speaking to a lowly Canadian on a forum where your power is as meaningless and non existent as my own.

If you can't see how roughly 2/3 of 187 F-22's are no match for a wall of Flankers or Fulcrums in a conventional conflict with China, then there's no point in me trying to illustrate the point for you.

It's cool that you don't care how many airmen we'll lose in Vipers, Mudhens, BUFFs and BONEs if we ever have to go downtown in a non-permissive environment, but that kind of thing actualy matters to me. Far more than making sure that some unemployed, inner-city junky gets his welfare check.

I know first hand that the stimulus isn't working, because my wife and I are both unemployed, and we have faced the burden of continuing our health insurance through the COBRA program in order to ensure that our infant daughter is covered.

So when the President gets on TV and tells the American population that it's essential to pass this "stimulus" bill "NOW NOW NOW!", and that we can't afford to wait two weeks in order to give the public time to read whats actually IN THE BILL, it's pretty easy to judge the effectiveness of such a program.

Here's a quick breakdown:

After nearly 6 months, we've only spent 10% of the money. If it was SOOOO urgent, why haven't we spent more of it?

He said that unemployment would stop at 8%. It's now 10% and climbing.

He said that the effects would be felt immediately because there were thousands of "shovel ready" projects to improve infrastructure. I haven't seen anything of the sort.

And let's be honest, how you can kill the F-22 which also kills tens of thousands of high-tech, well-paying, PERMANANT, American jobs, and then claim that you're "creating" jobs by paying a few low-wage, unskilled construction workers for a 6 month project, is beyond me.

So don't talk to me about what you think I don't know.

If you want to think I'm "beyond ignorant" for being cognizant of the fact that a Cold War era intelligence officer (Putin) is running a puppet government that is increasingly concerned with harassing NATO nations, and is clearly exploiting the US's current weakness to do things like attack Georgia without reprisal, then so be it.

The fact that you're Canadian was irrelevant until you made the remark about I hadn't convinced you that the spending is necessary. At which point, I mentioned that it doesn't really matter what a Canadian citizen thinks of our spending.

Everyone in the world EXPECTS the US to police the world. If there's a natural disaster, we're the ones who send planes, ships, food, and medicine. When there's atrocities being committed, everyone looks to the US to lead the coalition to stop it. When there's a scuffle in some remote corner of the world, everyone looks to US diplomats to steady the situation.

So lets not pretend that since the end of World War II, a significant portion of the free world hasn't been living under the umbrella of American protection.

It's not something that needs to be advertised all the time, looking for a pat on the back, but you can't very well claim that we're overplaying our hand when the entire would be in an uproar if we sat on our hands and did nothing.

[Specter1075]

First, I am sorry for what you, your family, and thousands of other Americans are going through. I am. I am aware that means nothing to you, but I have to say it because I do generally care about the well being of people and regardless of our diverging opinions, I don't wish that kind of situation on anyone. It is with that in mind that I speak about all of this.

While I cant speak to the Chinese military, I can speak about Russia. I can say that Georgia attacked Russian forces first (the question is whether it is justified or not.) But regardless of all of that, how can you tell me that the US was justified to go into Iraq for "democracy" "freedom" and all that other crap and then fault the Russians for intervening on behalf of a group of people that the Georgians have tried to force-assimilate? You cant, not when you at the same time support Kosovar independance.

The fact is that while the US is a force for good, it is only that force when it benefits you. You cant fault anyone for acting like that, because as you well know, what matters most to you is your family. But don't sit there and pretend your country works for the greater good because it only works for the greater good of itself. Otherwise it would have intervened in all kinds of countries with real issues (but no oil.) Odd that Iraq is about freedom. Does freedom not apply to Africa too? Odd that Russia is an evil empire for running a less than democratic government, but that exact same type of governance is perfectly acceptable when the country hosts the US military, or exports gas and oil. The fact of the matter is that Georgia and Ukraine matter to NATO only because they are transit points for gas and oil. Coincidentally enough, Russia values them for similar reasons. (Not to mention the extremely large portion of Russians living in those countries.) But more than that, Russia views the former Soviet space as a buffer between it and a NATO that claims to be friendly and yet continuously seeks to expand. Did it ever occur to you that if you treat Russia like an enemy, then you shouldn't be surprised when they reciprocate?

As for asking for a justification in your spending, you mis-understood my intent. I was not seeking justification, but trying to spark the debate to prove a point. My point was that it doesnt matter where you cut spending, you are cutting something that is important to someone. With yourself as an example, at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is yourself and your family. That's fair, but dont pretend to have noble intentions and a holier than thou attitude.

To bring this full circle, I was never saying that cutting the F-22 program is a good or bad idea. But for the same reasons you say its bad (jobs being a major one) all the same things apply to any other program that gets cut. And again, for the record, I never spoke about what you did or did not know when it comes to anything American. I only questioned your understanding of Russia. Let me make something clear. I have very dear friends in many parts of the world. You place the highest priorities on your family. So do I. So when people start talking about going to war with people who don't give a good god damn about the US, its culture or anything, but simply wish to live their lives like anyone else, I get upset. If you have never spent time in a foreign country, then I would encourage you to do so. I think you'll find it becomes a lot more difficult to talk about war when your friends are the ones on the receiving end of your own military.

And don't even try to tell me that the world comes begging for your country. You have dominated every sphere of the world system of government and made it impossible for countries to survive if they don't align with you. You act with impunity. You create systems of integration like NAFTA, but then only follow its rules when it benefits you. You participate in the UN, but as soon as the world disagrees, you go off and do your own thing. You are high and mighty until it inconveniences you. So you can continue to pat yourselves on the back, but you are as self centered, self serving as any of the worst countries in the world. Because you are the world power doesn't make you a just or correct power or that your position was pre-ordained by God, it just makes you a power. People dont beg you for help because they think highly of you. They beg you because you have everything. Yet for all that you have, you cant understand why most of the world hates you.

It doesnt have to be so, and I wish it wasnt.

[Lance]

Spend more money on humvee / striker vehicle armor, infantry personal defence equipment and weapons, language/cultural schooling for cimic and intelligence/special forces personnel going into the countries, increase endorsement of intl. deployments and exercises to improve cohesion. you can't walk to road alone any longer, this is the 21st century. think more NATO. Increase flight hours per flight crew to increase training quality. Spend money on that, the Private on daily patrol through baghdad needs his equipment more than the af needs predators or F/A-22s.

My 2 cents.

[AngryDispatcher]

First, I am sorry for what you, your family, and thousands of other Americans are going through. I am. I am aware that means nothing to you, but I have to say it because I do generally care about the well being of people and regardless of our diverging opinions, I don't wish that kind of situation on anyone. It is with that in mind that I speak about all of this.

Thank you. I have no doubt that you're sincere in your words. I also tend to believe the best of people. I only intended to illustrate that I have a front row seat to what's going on here, and that I've got chips in the game.


If you have never spent time in a foreign country, then I would encourage you to do so. I think you'll find it becomes a lot more difficult to talk about war when your friends are the ones on the receiving end of your own military.

I have actually. I've had the the pleasure to visit 9 countries in Europe, in addition to our neighbors to the north and south. My wife and I have actually considered moving to Toronto.

I have no appetite for war, and nothing I've said should indicate otherwise. I do advocate a strong defense, however. I beleive that fielding the most advanced weapons ensures the safety of our servicemen, and serves as a useful deterrent.

Specifically with regard to your question regarding my/our justification for the Iraq war: Do some reading.

Among the numerous UN resolutions Saddam failed to heed, were: Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284. All of which were passed by the UN body, not the US.

In addition to the non-compliance of these regulations, consider the following (admittedly, from a quick wiki search (it's getting late)):

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.

Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region.

Iraq's brutal repression of its civilian population.

Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its people".

Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

Saddam was an evil person who squandered his country's most precious assets, and oppressed the Iraqi people while he lived a king's lifestyle. He killed tens of thousands of people using chemical weapons.

Can you really tell me that removing him from power and defeating the insurgents can't be justified? You don't think the war is against the Iraqi people do you? The whole point is to free the people of the tyrannical rule, and constant fear they had been subjected to for decades.


You participate in the UN, but as soon as the world disagrees, you go off and do your own thing. You are high and mighty until it inconveniences you. So you can continue to pat yourselves on the back, but you are as self centered, self serving as any of the worst countries in the world.

I just don't see this one. America, the shining beacon of hope, prosperity and freedom is no different than the worst countries in the world?

Tell that to the tens of millions of people who've received food, water, blankets, medical care, etc. courtesy of the US taxpayer. Tell that to the thousands of American soldiers buried in France.

That's WAY off base, dude.


Because you are the world power doesn't make you a just or correct power or that your position was pre-ordained by God...

I don't think God should have anything to do with it. I don't need another man's diety to tell me what's right and wrong in this world. 9 times out of 10, we're on the right side of that equation.


Yet for all that you have, you cant understand why most of the world hates you.

You're right. This one eludes me.

I guess it's just human nature to want those on top fail spectacularly. Jealousy, maybe?

It's kinda the same attitude the democrats have here in the US. They'd rather see America's standards lowered, than raise the standard for everyone else. I mean, it's not fair that we prosper while other's flounder, right?

Even the losers have to get a trophy as big as the winners'. It's the only fair thing to do. :nono:

[AngryDispatcher]

Spend more money on humvee / striker vehicle armor, infantry personal defence equipment and weapons, language/cultural schooling for cimic and intelligence/special forces personnel going into the countries, increase endorsement of intl. deployments and exercises to improve cohesion. you can't walk to road alone any longer, this is the 21st century. think more NATO. Increase flight hours per flight crew to increase training quality. Spend money on that, the Private on daily patrol through baghdad needs his equipment more than the af needs predators or F/A-22s.

My 2 cents.

Good perspective Lance, but I disagree.

That argument might fair a little better if the money saved by axing the F-22 actually went toward those things. Unfortunately, it's being diverted toward other, more "social" initiatives, like funding the bank bailouts, buying up the auto industry, and giving kickbacks to the unions.

I'll say this though. We had all better hope that we don't get tangled up in a "real" fight anytime soon. I cherish the lives of each and every soldier, airman, marine, etc... but we need to have a bit of perspective regarding what the casualties would be if we ever have to get involved with an enemy that doesn't dwell in caves.

We've been spoiled by 50+ years of air dominance, and some don't realize that with our aging equipment, it's no longer a foregone conclusion. I don't want to see the day where an enemy air force is able harass our ground troops.

So I'd argue that the F-22 and other advanced technology weapon systems currently on the Obama chopping block are every bit as important to the infantryman as they are to the Air Force.

[lqcorsa]

So yeah how about that F-22? :blank:

[xhaos]

I went to sleep and all this broke loose! unfair! :)

It is exactly like specter said, (it was freaking like i was reading my own text). if you see the track record of aggressive us external policy you will not like what you see, at all i can say. In fact there isnt any WIN, while all losses can be appointed to bad US orchestration. US feeds the mujahedin in afganistan, 15 years pass and afganistan turns against the us. i dont even go inside the theory about laden being CIA operative and the fact that on the next day all the members of the binladen family were flown by FBI to the saudi arabia.
US appointed Sadam and hand fed him in order to oppose Iran, part of the deal was that iraq would get back some disputed areas of Kuwait. when he was finally refused he tried to take it by force.
Vietnam, need i say something? France leaves, US goes in, US cames out and the people there are left to survive the buildup of such hate.

The problem of the US in my book is that it serves the interests of its industry. it gets into fights cause its industry asks for it, buffs up enemies, and then shortsightedly it turns to do the same elsewhere. is it of wonder that these enemies bite?
Not to mention that the saudi arabians are maybe the most inhumane country in the world, but no one even talks about their atrocities because they are friend. they still cut peoples hands for stealing and stone women to death for cheating.
So what we have so far is inability to finish the job in a foreign policy and also double standards.
Now to this i can add that you often hung your allies out to dry, like it happened numerous times with Greece ( recognition of FYROM as macedonia, Turkey-Cyprus war in 72, Greece-Turkey conflict in 96).
Also i can add that your own people in Orleans are still without work, without homes, without infrastructure.

All this adds to a child like behavior, if you dont rush in on your white horse, you dont do anything and even after you rush in, you leave rushing elsewhere. This is something other nations tremor, because you control big part of the economy and you have the military power and behave like cowboys. this is nightmare-ish.


Now on the part of conflict with another big power. If it happens, i hope that only solders from each side will be killed. Because this would mean its not a nuclear war. Cold war was not about tanks, it was about nuclear missile silos. I believe that all airforce and tanks and and and wont matter a bit when 5000 missiles each with 6-8 or 12 warheads launches from each side. Air superiority is a good thing against small forces, against big its nothing.

On the part of economic conflict, right now China is the number one country economically, its the country with the biggest production, the last country to enter crisis and the first one to get out of crisis. Also its the country to witch the US owes most of its debt. So in a way they "already own" the US.


anyways to make a long story short, in case of global war, all the kings horses and all the kings men will not do anything. in case of small conflict the US doesnt need f22s. and the world hates us policy cause its such apparent double standards and because it tends to lead to worse situations than the ones it tried to solve, because it stuck its nose into matters they understand only amateurishly and this scares people.

[Buckshot]

Guys, this is starting to slide downhill.

When you start making accusations in regards to foreign policy without any real basis, then the discussions tend to get out of control.

The bottom line is EVERY country acts in their own self interest first, the same as any human being. To do otherwise would be foolish.

There are a lot of very naiive accusations and statements being bandied backward and forward which if allowed to continue are only going to lead to an inflamed argument which is not something we will allow on these boards.

If you want to continue this discussion, please try to steer more towards the original topic, foreign policy is a much more complex matter than some of the posters here are considering and is a whole otehr discussion which is well outside the bounds of this forum.

[Specter1075]

A couple things were taken the wrong way. My point in bringing up Iraq was not that there was no good reason for going in there, my point is that of all the places in the world to intervene for good reasons, the US chose Iraq that just so happens to have oil. The situation in Iraq was not more dire than in other parts of the world, and yet the US chooses not to intervene in places like Africa. You can and do act in whatever way you wish, and really the world can do nothing about it, but dont think that we are so naive as to believe that you are doing it in the interest of good in the world. You arnt.

You bring up how much the American tax payer gives, well, I agree that you give a lot. The American people are generous, but I would not say it is far and beyond other nations in this world, at least when looking at per capita numbers. People come to America because life in America is good and one has the chance to succeed. My argument is not whether the American way of life is good or not. My issue is the idea that the US stands for anything more than its own interest. When I said you went against the UN, I was thinking of Iraq. When I brought up NAFTA, I was thinking of the softwood issue. On the one hand, the US will support Kosovar independence, but on the other will call for the preservation of Georgian territorial integrity. On the one hand, the United States calls for more democracy and freedom in Russia. On the other, it seeks to woo the Central Asian countries whose governments are as bad or worse than that of Russia. It is this double standard that I take issue with.

We have come a long way from the ending of the F-22 program. With regards to that, I would like to say again that I am not someone who advocates a weak military or no military. We agree that spending needs to be brought under control. Your solution to it was to cut the stimulus spending and to stop trying to push through massive reforms that will cost money. You may be very well correct, but what I have been saying the entire time is that for every American like yourself who hates what Obama is doing, there are others who love it no less. The bottom line is that each of you can only express an opinion and one is no more correct than the other. It is for this reason that I asked where does one cut spending? You will never be able to cut spending on a program and not anger people, such as yourself. I think if we had this conversation is person, you would be surprised at how much we agree on.

On that note, I think I have come as far, if not farther, than I wanted to in this conversation. We are both guilty of allowing emotion to enter at various points to the detriment of the conversation. For my part, I want to say that I never had the intent to insult anyone. My only goal was to give a different perspective and to try to get you and others thinking about things in a different way. America's primacy in the world, and its interconnectedness to every part of the globe should place a responsibility on the US to better appreciate the cultures and people's it is affecting, and it often feels like this is not the case. I remember reading The Ugly American, and while old, I think it still speaks volumes about how Americans are perceived.

[A.S]

I didnt wanted first to post this here..... but i think its good thing to share... even little bit offtopic....but also NOT.

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=6CPQ2YZK

[AngryDispatcher]

I went to sleep and all this broke loose! unfair! :)


I can't think of any other nation that sends it's own sons and daughters to die for the freedom of others as often as we do. To be honest, I have no reason to speak ill of Greece, but since you're taking the time to articulate everything you think is wrong with America, then lets take a quick look at some fun facts about Greece:

Given Greece's civil war with the communists, and the material support given to you by the US that helped you defeat them, I think you should be a bit more understanding of American intervention in Southest Asia to prevent communist forces from overrunning South Vietnam.

About the same time as Americans were dieing by the thousands for the freedom of the Vietnamese, it seems your government was embroiled in a coup d'etat, after which the citizens' civil rights were oppressed, military courts established, and political parties dissolved.

You jailed thousands of "suspected communists" and political opponents, and exiled others.

So, where exactly do you get off criticising America again?

[AngryDispatcher]

...my point is that of all the places in the world to intervene for good reasons, the US chose Iraq that just so happens to have oil.

You're right. We can't be everywhere, or save everyone. We chose Iraq over some place in Africa, because the stability of the Middle East, and it's balance of power have far-reaching implications for the entire globe.

The same cannot be said of the Congo.

I'd love to be able to put the hurt on the poeple who commit genocide in Africa, but we can't confront North Korea's and Iran's nuclear ambitions, keep the Israelis from popping off on someone, contain a resurgent Russia that seeks to destabilize the region, fight the "good fight" in Iraq and Afghanistan, AND head to Darfur to schwack some ass there too.

It's funny how everyone cites oil as the reason for both wars, as if we're somehow stealing their stuff. It's funny that I pay 3x as much for gas as I did before 9/11. So explain to me again how we're somehow benefiting from it again?

That said, I think people need to realize that oil is energy, and that energy is a commodity that is VITAL to our (and any coutry's) interests. Energy IS something that wars are fought over. So lets also not pretend that there's anything intrinsically wrong with protecting a vital energy source.

That says nothing of the fact that revenue from oil sales in Middle Eastern countries is being funneled into funding for terrorism, so there's another reason why oil is a valid concern.


The situation in Iraq was not more dire than in other parts of the world, and yet the US chooses not to intervene in places like Africa.

I guess I answered this one above.


You can and do act in whatever way you wish, and really the world can do nothing about it, but dont think that we are so naive as to believe that you are doing it in the interest of good in the world. You arnt.

What's good for the US, is typically good for a large portion of the world. So, what are we supposed to do, not look out for #1?

And I already argued that Americans have died all over the world in the name of freedom. Many of their sacrifices have done nothing to directly benefit the average American. Therefore, I can only assume that their deaths have benefited those of the nations in which they died protecting/liberating.



When I said you went against the UN, I was thinking of Iraq.

But as I pointed out, the impotent UN passed dozens of resolutions against Saddam, condemning his actions and demanding changes. Yet were they prepared to actually DO anything to enforce them? No.

As usual, it's up to us to actually "walk the walk".

How is anything supposed to get done with China and Russia vetoing every reasonable measure that passes before them? Honestly?

The UN could barely scrape together enough support to write a nasty letter to Kim Jung Il after he detonated a nuclear bomb last month. What a bunch of useless morons.

I completely support the US's withdrawal from the UN. And since we are, by far, the largest financier of the UN, we can take that money and put it to better use.


It is this double standard that I take issue with.

I think the real double standard is the worlds' expectation that the US should act promptly on their issues, and intervene across the globe in all manner of disputes, yet their constant bellyaching that we're reckless and unwelcome.

Can you imagine the outcry if we took an isolationist stance, brought our soldiers home, and merely watched as things went to hell in a handbasket?

There would be outrage, and calls for us to fulfill our "duty" to the international community.

I guess people don't appreciate what they have until it's gone.


I think if we had this conversation is person, you would be surprised at how much we agree on.

I think you're right. I find that most arguments are over trivial diferences of opinion. I happen to feel pretty strongly about this issue, and those surrounding it, but that doesn't mean anyone needs to be at each other's throats.


On that note, I think I have come as far, if not farther, than I wanted to in this conversation. We are both guilty of allowing emotion to enter at various points to the detriment of the conversation. For my part, I want to say that I never had the intent to insult anyone.

I'm not insulted. I'm not surprised either. I know how the world views the US and its citizens. I just don't agree with it.


I remember reading The Ugly American, and while old, I think it still speaks volumes about how Americans are perceived.

I've never heard of it, but I can bet that I wouldn't agree. It might accurately portray the perception others have of America(ns), but I'm willing to bet it doesn't reflect the reality.

[Specter1075]

Im sorry, I just wont buy into the notion that you cant be everywhere all the time. How does that explain the support you give to countries that are completely against all the things you "stand" for? Yeah, oil is of vital interest. Can you tell me who else needs it bad? Russia? China? Aka, the bad guys? Their desires are the same as yours. I call that competition. You spoke before about Russia antagonizing Georgia because the US couldnt (wouldnt) intervene. Did it occur to you that US actions there could be called interference? 50% of the population of Ukraine is Russian. Of the 50% who are Ukrainian, something like only 30% want to be part of NATO. The reason? Because they too believe it does nothing beyond disturbing a neighbor that they NEED. Ukrainians desire closer ties to the West out of a desire to see improvements in living standards. There is much higher support to become part of economic organizations, or even the EU. I just dont understand why the United States can look out for number 1, and anyone else who does that is an enemy that threatens the American way of life unless they align with American interests. Central Asia is a big deal because Russia, China and the US are vying for influence over resources there. You can label the other two bad guys because their system of government isnt great but that doesnt mean anything. There are a good number of people that are fed up with the American system, and while I dont claim that the US is not a great place to live, there is at the same time a reason why Medvedev and Putin enjoy extremely high popularity among Russians.

The argument that the UN is impotent and the US should just walk away is laughable. This is exactly what I mean when I say the US just does as it wishes, never mind the greater good. Why walk away from the largest multinational organization on the planet instead of trying to reforming it? The UN didnt act on the resolutions against Iraq, but neither did NATO. I believe its fairly arrogant to think that much of the world aligned against an operation in Iraq, including millions of citizens inside the coalition member states, and yet you were still doing the greater good. Mind you, I already said there was good reason to go into Iraq, but I dont think for a minute that any of the true reasons for the operation were noble.

Lastly, I think you spoke too rashly when you yourself said that you were ignorant about The Ugly American. You literally just judged the book by it's name and formed a stance about it. Had you bothered to even look it up on wikipedia, you would see that it was a book written during the Cold War for Americans demonstrating how their actions can unknowingly bring down the prestige of the United States which in turn can increase the prestige of the Soviet Union. The book was not a criticism at all. It was written for people traveling overseas as an example of how they should conduct themselves.

[xhaos]

You jailed thousands of "suspected communists" and political opponents, and exiled others.

So, where exactly do you get off criticising America again?

From the testimonies that have surfaced in the last years that prove it was staged by the CIA (as it was said by ex US ambassador posted in Athens). its just another thing to be thankful of, just like other countries. But point dully taken, will shut up and goto my corner. Thank all for you time, and so sorry for my nonsense. Everything is good in the kingdom of men.
Over and out.

P.S. why does the name McArture came to mind.

[AngryDispatcher]

From the testimonies that have surfaced in the last years that prove it was staged by the CIA.

Yeah...

[AngryDispatcher]

You literally just judged the book by it's name and formed a stance about it.

You got me. I didn't google the book referenced by someone trying to prove that America is nothing more than a bunch of self serving cowboys that the entire world disdains.

I didn't think I needed to. Honestly, I took my wife and daughter out to dinner and a drive-in movie instead. If you haven't enjoyed a summer evening outdoors in the American midwest, you're really missing out. There's too much beauty and love in my life to focus on ridiculous claims that we're a bunch of ignorant assholes that owe every other country an answer for everything we do.

It's funny (not really) how you guys are every bit as ignorant about American and our culture as you claim we are of yours. Not a single American voted to go to war in Iraw for their god damn oil. We saw a ruthless dictator who routinely decides to commit genocide against his own people (and others), and we did something about it. Tough titty.

If Canada had a set of balls, maybe they would've done something about it. Or if you're all really so concerned about Darfur or the Congo, why don't YOU send YOUR troops there?

Or maybe France could pony up? Or the Germans, or the Italian, or anyone else? No. Because you all sit around and blow eachother at the UN, and then let Russia and China veto anything you want to accomplish.

Then, as usual, it will be up to the American "cowboys" to go and do it unilaterally. And, predictably, the circle-jerk at the UN will all agree that we were out of line, and this time, Russia and China will happily agree.

Rinse and repeat.

So really, I'd be far happier to bring all of our sons and daughters home and out of Harm's Way. I'd be even happier to watch you all try to figure out what to do without us.

You want to label us all as arrogant. So be it. How's that for arrogance. The day your country provides 1/10th what we do for the world, I might care what you have to say. Until then, STFU and just say "thank you" every once in a while.

I really don't feel any further need to defend my nation, its people or its actions.

Delete as necessary, but I'm done with this bullshit conversation.

[Lance]

(...)
Or maybe France could pony up? Or the Germans, or the Italian, or anyone else? No. Because you all sit around and blow eachother at the UN, and then let Russia and China veto anything you want to accomplish.

Then, as usual, it will be up to the American "cowboys" to go and do it unilaterally.(...)



Wowowowowo!!!

Hold it there brother!
We are now supposedly worthless allies now?

There isn't only the american way. And I am quite happy how my country's government is making extensive precautions before sending anyone into harms way! I serve, and If I have to go, I know it is the last resort and all other means have been exhausted. That is how it is supposed to be!
Did you know my country contributes extensively to the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization?

[Specter1075]

You got me. I didn't google the book referenced by someone trying to prove that America is nothing more than a bunch of self serving cowboys that the entire world disdains.

I didn't think I needed to. Honestly, I took my wife and daughter out to dinner and a drive-in movie instead. If you haven't enjoyed a summer evening outdoors in the American midwest, you're really missing out. There's too much beauty and love in my life to focus on ridiculous claims that we're a bunch of ignorant assholes that owe every other country an answer for everything we do.

It's funny (not really) how you guys are every bit as ignorant about American and our culture as you claim we are of yours. Not a single American voted to go to war in Iraw for their god damn oil. We saw a ruthless dictator who routinely decides to commit genocide against his own people (and others), and we did something about it. Tough titty.

If Canada had a set of balls, maybe they would've done something about it. Or if you're all really so concerned about Darfur or the Congo, why don't YOU send YOUR troops there?

Or maybe France could pony up? Or the Germans, or the Italian, or anyone else? No. Because you all sit around and blow eachother at the UN, and then let Russia and China veto anything you want to accomplish.

Then, as usual, it will be up to the American "cowboys" to go and do it unilaterally. And, predictably, the circle-jerk at the UN will all agree that we were out of line, and this time, Russia and China will happily agree.

Rinse and repeat.

So really, I'd be far happier to bring all of our sons and daughters home and out of Harm's Way. I'd be even happier to watch you all try to figure out what to do without us.

You want to label us all as arrogant. So be it. How's that for arrogance. The day your country provides 1/10th what we do for the world, I might care what you have to say. Until then, STFU and just say "thank you" every once in a while.

I really don't feel any further need to defend my nation, its people or its actions.

Delete as necessary, but I'm done with this bullshit conversation.


Your arrogance is shameful and embarrassing. The book Im referencing, for the second time now, is not a criticism of the United States! It was given to me by an American. You're right though. Enjoy your wonderful landscape and continue living in some delusion that your country is the be all and end all of goodness.

You can shout it from the mountains for all I care, you did not go into Iraq simply to remove the "evil" dictator of Iraq. It just doesn't add up that of all the dictators to choose from, you would chose that one. Cry all you want, it. doesn't. add. up.

Use your head before you speak. My country is less than a tenth the size of yours and yet it is just as involved in the world and is fighting alongside your troops in Afghanistan. I could sit here and list the accomplishments but that would be completely pointless, especially since you don't bother reading things correctly anyway.

If you want to believe that doing whatever you want simply because you can is correct, well that's your hang-up. That you would sit here and say that every other nation blows the other since they don't support every whim your country has shows just how terribly ignorant you are. It really blows my mind that you would go off in such a way when the whole time I have been trying to tell you that I have a different interpretation of the reasons your government acts the way it does, but never once did I belittle the American people. Your post here has spoken volumes more than anyone else could have. Congratulations. The love in your life is readily apparent.


EDIT

You can have a hate on for me all you like, but you just spit on a number of people here that had nothing to do with any of this, including Lance.

[Dukeyboy]

Oh, sorry guys, didn't mean to disturb, thought I saw something about F/A-22 on the door.

Anyway, since I'm here, anyone want to buy a few Eurofighter Typhoons? ;-)

[AngryDispatcher]

Oh ok. I get it now.

It's okay to claim that the US is equal to the worst countries in the world.

It's okay to claim that the American people have a dubious purpose in Iraq.

It's okay to claim that Americans don't believe in freedom and goodness.

It's okay to claim that America doesn't do enough to intervene everywhere there's an injustice in the world, yet you also maintain that we're nosey and not welcome to intervene in every injustice in the world. It makes people nervous, and makes things worse, remember?

It's okay to claim that Americans are ignorant.

It's okay to mercilessly ridicule and question the core values of the American people.

It's NOT okay to point out that I'm tired of listening to the endless critique about what everyone hates about my country and my people.

It's NOT okay to point out that I don't see anyone in YOUR government doing anything about Darfur, the Congo, North Korea, Iran, or Syria.

It's NOT okay to point out that the FACT that the UN doesn't have the teeth or the balls to enforce its own rules without the US.

I love the Germans, the Brits, the Italians (I'm of Italian descent), the Spanish, the Dutch, the Candians, and everyone else. I genuinely do. But I'm sick and tired of the attitude that we're a bunch of ignorant retards who are too stupid to see that what we really need is to be like Europe.

I'm sorry if it pisses you off, but we're not European (or Canadian), and we don't want to be like you. That's kinda why my grandparents got a on crowded, stinky ass boat and came to America in the first place.

And Lance: I love you. I really do. And I respect the shit out of you for serving your country.

But that doesn't change the fact that Germany, France, Spain, Britain, Canada, etc., sometimes appear to be a bit weary of doing something unless the whole goddamn world agrees with them.

It seems more often than not, we need to show you guys were the dance floor is in order for you to get your backs off the wall.

Sometimes you can't be friends with everybody, and appease everybody all at the same time. That's all I'm saying.

[Lance]

I forgot to add, that I really enjoy my stay here in the United States, regardless of politics. And I think we have a lot to learn from eachother. There are and will be many things we might not be able to make a connection on. The United States has influenced my country substantially over the years and vice versa. We are good friends, and good friends are able to argue. When it comes down to business,

As ENJJPT puts it:

"One Team, One Fight!"


Thank you and have a nice evening.


Lance

[Buckshot]

I think this thread has run it's course unfortunately.