If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Lawmakers: You really want these tanks, huh? Army: No, not really. Lawmakers: Come on... you know you want 'em. Army: Goddammit we said "No"   (security.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 306
    More: Asinine, Odierno, Yoshiaki Iwasaki, General Dynamics, Drew Griffin, Sierra Nevada  
•       •       •

6453 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Oct 2012 at 8:24 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



306 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-10 02:17:40 AM
And this is why we can't cut the defense budget. We're at war with our own "Representatives."

I don't know how you keep them idle for three years, but find something. Figure it out. There is no sense buying sh*t just to park it in a motor pool and never use it. We're moving away from large-scale armor engagements, so there is really no need going nuts on armor.

McKeon said he's thinking about the long range view. "... If someone could guarantee us that we'll never need tanks in the future, that would be good. I don't see that guarantee."

More than what we have and can refurbish? Uhhh... I can guarantee you that for a while. Go to Aberdeen Proving Grounds or any of the other storage sites for armor we can just refurbish and put into action. We have the tools. Take the $3,000,000,000 and use it elsewhere. Don't worry... I'm sure the Army will ask for it for something else sooner than you can imagine.
 
2012-10-10 02:20:43 AM
Tell you what, start selling the oldest ones at auction without the firing parts included. I'll be in the line somewhere to help rid you of the back stock...
 
2012-10-10 02:39:40 AM

ladyfortuna: Tell you what, start selling the oldest ones at auction without the firing parts included. I'll be in the line somewhere to help rid you of the back stock...


There are ways to get surplus tanks.

Here, for example. I'm sure shipping to the US could be arranged.
 
2012-10-10 02:44:13 AM

NewportBarGuy: And this is why we can't cut the defense budget. We're at war with our own "Representatives."

I don't know how you keep them idle for three years, but find something. Figure it out. There is no sense buying sh*t just to park it in a motor pool and never use it. We're moving away from large-scale armor engagements, so there is really no need going nuts on armor.

McKeon said he's thinking about the long range view. "... If someone could guarantee us that we'll never need tanks in the future, that would be good. I don't see that guarantee."

More than what we have and can refurbish? Uhhh... I can guarantee you that for a while. Go to Aberdeen Proving Grounds or any of the other storage sites for armor we can just refurbish and put into action. We have the tools. Take the $3,000,000,000 and use it elsewhere. Don't worry... I'm sure the Army will ask for it for something else sooner than you can imagine.


McKeon was also unaware that the tank makers had made a hefty contribution to his campaign. Follow the money people. F*ck the taxpayers, we want kickbacks.
 
2012-10-10 02:51:12 AM

AbbeySomeone: Follow the money people.


Personally? I think they care more about losing jobs in their district. They can raise $56k other ways, but they can't fight local paper headline of people getting laid off. I understand why they do it, but it's just another reason we need term limits so people don't make stupid decisions like this just to keep their job.
 
2012-10-10 03:18:59 AM

NewportBarGuy: And this is why we can't cut the defense budget. We're at war with our own "Representatives."


The defense contractors know this. Building one F-22 Raptor involves parts or subcontractors in 46 states. You can't tell me that that's a coincidence. That much bi-partisan pork will protect that hangar queen for decades.
 
2012-10-10 03:28:14 AM

Sgt Otter: Building one F-22 Raptor involves parts or subcontractors in 46 states. You can't tell me that that's a coincidence.


It's f*cking ridiculous and nary a word of outrage is spoken on the Hill or on the news. We just know that the money flows to "jobs" whether we need them or not for what they produce.

I support stimulus measures in a down economy, but we have to at least be reasonable. If we pump that same amount of money into infrastructure, we can probably keep most of these people employed and not wind up with things we don't need. If we need to train them into a transitional field, then do it. Or give them a lower cost project to replace the MRAP which we'll need for more mobility.

It's a goddamn lazy, childish allocation of funds. We know how much armor we have. We have plenty for the next few wars. I understand long-term planning (What if we have no tank factories! OMG NOOOOOOOO!!!) I think we did pretty well after WWII. We had an Army doing rifle training with brooms before Pearl Harbor. That's how my grandfather lost several of his teeth... Broom to the mouth.

They are too easy ready to write checks for things we don't need rather than do the work involved in finding a better way. I'm sick of it.

The F-22, 46 State solution only proves the point. Make it uncuttable and you'll make these lifers make choices on whether they want to keep their seat, not what is in the best interest of the country security-wise or financially. At least Robert Gates had the balls to fight against that which he did not need. He is sorely missed and Panetta couldn't hold his jock-strap.
 
2012-10-10 03:30:17 AM
I hate to be on the same side as a Congresscritter, but for reasons that have nothing to do with campaign contributions I have to say that I would rather keep a tank factory on life support with a minimum amount of work with no real need for the tanks, than to shut it down.

We shut down a tank factory, it ain't reopening. Those workers will be gone by the time they are really needed and the equipment will most likely have been scrapped by the defense contractor.

Figure out the minimum production level needed to keep it running and order that number. Keep the skills of the workers current so that we don't have to worry as much about expensive war machines being built solely by inexperienced workers who just happened to be standing in line at the temp agency when the call for workers came in.
 
2012-10-10 03:37:21 AM

BolloxReader: I hate to be on the same side as a Congresscritter, but for reasons that have nothing to do with campaign contributions I have to say that I would rather keep a tank factory on life support with a minimum amount of work with no real need for the tanks, than to shut it down.

We shut down a tank factory, it ain't reopening. Those workers will be gone by the time they are really needed and the equipment will most likely have been scrapped by the defense contractor.


It would be really great if the army had a rebuttal to that point in the article. The whole thing seems to boil down to gambling on whether or not we will be in a large scale tank war sometime in the next 25 years. I am guessing no. In fact, it sort of seems like the WWI moment of charging a tank with calvary because it is all you know.
 
2012-10-10 05:28:07 AM

BolloxReader: I hate to be on the same side as a Congresscritter, but for reasons that have nothing to do with campaign contributions I have to say that I would rather keep a tank factory on life support with a minimum amount of work with no real need for the tanks, than to shut it down.

We shut down a tank factory, it ain't reopening. Those workers will be gone by the time they are really needed and the equipment will most likely have been scrapped by the defense contractor.

Figure out the minimum production level needed to keep it running and order that number. Keep the skills of the workers current so that we don't have to worry as much about expensive war machines being built solely by inexperienced workers who just happened to be standing in line at the temp agency when the call for workers came in.


Or maybe it would be more cost-effective to not start pointless farkin' wars.
 
2012-10-10 05:32:33 AM

BolloxReader: We shut down a tank factory, it ain't reopening. Those workers will be gone by the time they are really needed and the equipment will most likely have been scrapped by the defense contractor.


I have to disagree with you here. Do you ever wonder happened to all those tank and jeep factories after WWII? They went back to making cars, the same thing they were making before WWII.

This is one of the best reasons for keeping manufacturing centers like GM and Chrysler open, and why it was so short-sighted of Romney to say "Let Detroit fail!" - it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to convert an already functioning automobile assembly line, especially one located in a defensively strategic place like the middle of the continent, into war machine production. Trying to convince Japan or Korea to convert their assembly lines into making our tanks for us, however, presents all kinds of logistical difficulties.

Having a strong manufacturing base is essential to our own national security, for precisely the reasons demonstrated in WWII. This does not mean we have to have functioning military production, just the capability for it.
 
2012-10-10 05:37:47 AM

SnakeLee: It would be really great if the army had a rebuttal to that point in the article. The whole thing seems to boil down to gambling on whether or not we will be in a large scale tank war sometime in the next 25 years. I am guessing no. In fact, it sort of seems like the WWI moment of charging a tank with calvary because it is all you know.


I agree with you. However, because Detroit was saved, we have the same capability of being able to convert those automobile production lines into tank production lines in a matter of months, just like we did in WWII. Although the tanks are now infinitely more complex than those on the 1940's, so is the machinery used in those assembly lines.

This is all about corporate welfare for the military industrial complex. They're saying, "You can't cut us off! People need jobs! Cut food stamps instead! People don't need food!"
 
2012-10-10 05:39:04 AM

James F. Campbell: Or maybe it would be more cost-effective to not start pointless farkin' wars


blogs.seattleweekly.com
"Thanks, Florida!"
 
2012-10-10 05:51:27 AM

cptjeff: ladyfortuna: Tell you what, start selling the oldest ones at auction without the firing parts included. I'll be in the line somewhere to help rid you of the back stock...

There are ways to get surplus tanks.

Here, for example. I'm sure shipping to the US could be arranged.


But I want Abrams.
 
2012-10-10 06:02:41 AM

doglover: But I want Abrams.


Here you go.

Be sure to sign up for their other special offers.
 
2012-10-10 06:18:50 AM

doglover: But I want Abrams.


Okay, speaking of the Abrams, why did Bush in 2007 approve the sale of 125 M1A1 Abrams tanks to Egypt, a regime that we only three years later supported the overthrow of?

I mean, it was decades between our sale of chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein and our invasion on the pretext that he had the audacity to actually use them.

This is the problem with producing too many weapons - someone sees them sitting around, and before you know it, someone thinks its a good idea to sell them. Then, next thing you know, the purchaser uses them, and so the military has to order a new round of weapons to go kill someone else that is using the weapons we sold them in the first place.

I don't believe for one second that Hosni Mubarak's Egyptian government that had been in place for three decades went from "cool" to "needs to go" in only four years. What happened between 2007, when we sold him 125 Abrams battle tanks, as well as ammunition and training, and 2011 when we supported the uprising against him? If he was that bad, why the hell were we selling him tanks?

If we are producing so many tanks that we are selling them to other countries, then maybe we're producing too many tanks.
 
2012-10-10 07:33:08 AM

James F. Campbell: Or maybe it would be more cost-effective to not start pointless farkin' wars.


Funny thing about isolationism: We tried that in the first half of the last century, and we still ended up getting dragged into a couple of world wars, and we were unprepared for both. Luckily, we could ramp up production fairly quickly, but since weapons systems have become more complex with a longer lead time, you don't really have that luxury anymore.
 
2012-10-10 07:46:08 AM

dittybopper: since weapons systems have become more complex with a longer lead time, you don't really have that luxury anymore.


I disagree. Yes, the systems are pretty complex, infinitely more so than they were in the 1940's when we converted our auto factories into tank factories, but so are the factories.

Seriously, quite a bit of the work is just reprogramming the robots for new parts. I'm not saying it could be done overnight, but it could be done in the same few months it took in the 1940's.
 
2012-10-10 07:49:18 AM

ox45tallboy: I mean, it was decades between our sale of chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein and our invasion on the pretext that he had the audacity to actually use them.


We didn't sell chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein. We sold them intelligence during the Iran/Iraq war, and they bought some biological samples that they could weaponize on the open market from American sources, and that's about it.

It was *GERMANY* who sold Iraq the equipment: 52% of Iraq's chemical weapons equipment came from Germany, with much of the rest of the production equipment coming from France (21%) and Austria (16%). The balance came from a number of sources, none of it American. Actual chemicals (like Mustard Gas, and precursors for nerve agents) came from Singapore, Holland, Egypt, India, and Luxembourg. China and Spain provided actual weapons to be filled with chemical weapons (ie., artillery shells, bombs, etc.).

I don't know where this myth came up that we supplied Iraq with chemical weapons, but it's false. We didn't even significantly arm Iraq: most of their weapons systems are either European in origin, or came from the Soviet Union/Russia.

Their nuclear program was entirely French in origin.

That is why France, Germany, and Russia were dead set against the Iraq war: Saddam Hussein was deep in hock to them for all the weapons he got from them, and hadn't been able to pay them back due to economic sanctions, and if he got toppled, they stood to lose all that money. Don't kid yourself into thinking it was for humanitarian reasons.

That's not to say the justification for the Iraq war was 100% kosher either, just that governmental opposition to it from those countries was motivated not by concerns for the people of Iraq, but the fear that a new government in Iraq wouldn't pay for the stuff the Hussein regime bought largely on credit.
 
2012-10-10 07:52:50 AM

James F. Campbell: BolloxReader: I hate to be on the same side as a Congresscritter, but for reasons that have nothing to do with campaign contributions I have to say that I would rather keep a tank factory on life support with a minimum amount of work with no real need for the tanks, than to shut it down.

We shut down a tank factory, it ain't reopening. Those workers will be gone by the time they are really needed and the equipment will most likely have been scrapped by the defense contractor.

Figure out the minimum production level needed to keep it running and order that number. Keep the skills of the workers current so that we don't have to worry as much about expensive war machines being built solely by inexperienced workers who just happened to be standing in line at the temp agency when the call for workers came in.

Or maybe it would be more cost-effective to not start pointless farkin' wars.


Also, maybe it is just me, but, any wars we'll get into, probably sooner than later, will have little need for tanks.
 
2012-10-10 08:00:41 AM

ox45tallboy: dittybopper: since weapons systems have become more complex with a longer lead time, you don't really have that luxury anymore.

I disagree. Yes, the systems are pretty complex, infinitely more so than they were in the 1940's when we converted our auto factories into tank factories, but so are the factories.

Seriously, quite a bit of the work is just reprogramming the robots for new parts. I'm not saying it could be done overnight, but it could be done in the same few months it took in the 1940's.


Not really.

A robot designed to build an SUV isn't going to be able to build a tank. Something designed to handle parts that weigh a couple hundred pounds isn't going to be able to handle parts that weigh thousands, and simply tack-welding parts together (as is done for a lot of auto body parts) ain't gonna cut it for armor plate.

It's more than just reprogramming the robots that make Tahoes and Suburbans.
 
2012-10-10 08:03:32 AM

dletter: Also, maybe it is just me, but, any wars we'll get into, probably sooner than later, will have little need for tanks.


Don't make the classic mistake of projecting the last war you fought into the future.

Besides which, we used tanks extensively in 1991 and in 2003, because we were fighting conventionally armored opponents.
 
2012-10-10 08:06:41 AM

dittybopper: I don't know where this myth came up that we supplied Iraq with chemical weapons


I don't know... maybe Ted Koppel's 1992 Nightline report? And it's not a myth. The receipts for the rocket assemblies used as delivery mechanisms are on file.

dittybopper: We didn't even significantly arm Iraq: most of their weapons systems are either European in origin, or came from the Soviet Union/Russia.


I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you. While Iran was using mostly American made equipment in the Iran-Iraq war, they didn't buy a large part of it from the US. The ironic thing was that after the war began, the US began covertly supplying Iraq with weapons made elsewhere, so the nations then supplying Iran post-revolution wouldn't get pissed,

And the US did have plenty of above-board direct sales of things like helicopters and dual-use items like rocket assemblies. A sh*t ton of the evidence we had of Iraq's military capabilities in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion came from the fact that we knew exactly what we were looking for.
 
2012-10-10 08:09:59 AM

dittybopper: Not really.

A robot designed to build an SUV isn't going to be able to build a tank. Something designed to handle parts that weigh a couple hundred pounds isn't going to be able to handle parts that weigh thousands, and simply tack-welding parts together (as is done for a lot of auto body parts) ain't gonna cut it for armor plate.

It's more than just reprogramming the robots that make Tahoes and Suburbans.


But what it isn't is creating a whole new factory from scratch. The assembly lines are in place, complete with tools and equipment and people trained to use them, as well as managers that know how to get the most out of their employees and facilities. Yes, some things would need to be changed. This is why it would take a few months. But it would not necessitate completely building new factories and training new personnel from scratch.
 
2012-10-10 08:11:01 AM
"Tanks, but no tanks."
 
2012-10-10 08:13:49 AM
This is what happens when Congressmen wait so long to read "Red Storm Rising"
 
2012-10-10 08:17:18 AM
And Republicans tell us we can't cut defense spending.

We waste money on F-22s, when the type of air to air combat they were designed for never actually happens - standoff anti-air missions - and they are worse than any existing plane for any other role. We waste money on main battle tanks, when open tank battles are a thing of the past. We waste money on decades old ICBMs that just sit rotting in their silos. We waste money maintaining an active fleet of aircraft carriers larger than the entire rest of the world combined for absolutely no reason. We waste money maintaining bases around the world defending absolutely nothing. We waste money on "research" into new designs that are unlikely to work and are still designed to win the last war.

And yet we can't cut defense spending, the single greatest example of wasteful government spending with no return on investment.
 
2012-10-10 08:20:03 AM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: This is what happens when Congressmen wait so long to read "Red Storm Rising"


There's actually a book called The Third World War written by General Hackett that isn't all that dissimilar to that book. And Red Storm Rising is a good book. But Red Storm Rising is just as likely to be the next war as 50 year long trench warfare stalemates are going to happen like everyone thought after WW1.
 
2012-10-10 08:20:09 AM
Hey, you gotta look out for your country club buddies.
 
2012-10-10 08:22:57 AM

GAT_00: We waste money maintaining an active fleet of aircraft carriers larger than the entire rest of the world combined for absolutely no reason.


Okay, I'm with you on all the others, but the aircraft carriers are just cool as sh*t, not to mention intimidating as f*ck when you've got one parked 30 nautical miles from your coastline.

However, they are ridiculously expensive, and with all the military bases all over the world that we're currently supporting, virtually all of which have airports, we could probably do without them.

But they're still really f*cking cool.
 
2012-10-10 08:26:47 AM

GAT_00: But Red Storm Rising is just as likely to be the next war as 50 year long trench warfare stalemates are going to happen like everyone thought after WW1.


Well, not everyone. I like this guy's take on it:

content8.flixster.com
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will
be fought with sticks and stones."
 
2012-10-10 08:29:41 AM

ox45tallboy: GAT_00: We waste money maintaining an active fleet of aircraft carriers larger than the entire rest of the world combined for absolutely no reason.

Okay, I'm with you on all the others, but the aircraft carriers are just cool as sh*t, not to mention intimidating as f*ck when you've got one parked 30 nautical miles from your coastline.

However, they are ridiculously expensive, and with all the military bases all over the world that we're currently supporting, virtually all of which have airports, we could probably do without them.

But they're still really f*cking cool.


Yeah, but the rest of the world combined can't even field 12 fleet carriers, like we do. I think they can if you include those crappy helicopter carriers that aren't real carriers. Fine, keep 3 for the Arabian Sea, and 3 for China. Who the fark are the rest for? And just cutting those 6 carriers from active deployment can save something like $100 billion a year.
 
2012-10-10 08:30:19 AM

dletter: James F. Campbell: BolloxReader: I hate to be on the same side as a Congresscritter, but for reasons that have nothing to do with campaign contributions I have to say that I would rather keep a tank factory on life support with a minimum amount of work with no real need for the tanks, than to shut it down.

We shut down a tank factory, it ain't reopening. Those workers will be gone by the time they are really needed and the equipment will most likely have been scrapped by the defense contractor.

Figure out the minimum production level needed to keep it running and order that number. Keep the skills of the workers current so that we don't have to worry as much about expensive war machines being built solely by inexperienced workers who just happened to be standing in line at the temp agency when the call for workers came in.

Or maybe it would be more cost-effective to not start pointless farkin' wars.

Also, maybe it is just me, but, any wars we'll get into, probably sooner than later, will have little need for tanks.


This is why we need to invade someone NOW. Haven't these people ever played Civilization? If your army starts costing too much money, you don't just disband units. You throw them at someone else.
I recommend Mexico. Mexico City has a good sized population. We could build a library there, and make all those Mexicans useful.
 
2012-10-10 08:32:07 AM
1) Defund Planned Parenthood.

2) Fire Big Bird.

3) MOAR TANKS!

4) ???

5) Balanced budget!

/Seriously, where the fark is the Tea Party when wasteful Pentagon boondoggles are at issue?
 
2012-10-10 08:33:08 AM
And here (warning, PDF) are some numbers from RAND about how much a Nimitz-class carrier costs a year.
 
2012-10-10 08:33:52 AM
Remember folks when it's wasteful government spending on blowing brown skin people up it's not "pork". It's only pork when you educate and/or feed brown skin people.
 
2012-10-10 08:33:59 AM

NewportBarGuy: Take the $3,000,000,000 and use it elsewhere.


Nope, he needs it spent there (his state), and on a company that has donated to him.
 
2012-10-10 08:35:29 AM
www.whitehouse.gov

*cough* TOLD YOU! *cough*
 
2012-10-10 08:37:52 AM

NewportBarGuy: AbbeySomeone: Follow the money people.

Personally? I think they care more about losing jobs in their district. They can raise $56k other ways, but they can't fight local paper headline of people getting laid off. I understand why they do it, but it's just another reason we need term limits so people don't make stupid decisions like this just to keep their job.


And the businesses that make tanks aren't going to switch to solar panels, and it's not like he can make them. He could adjust the tax code such that new green energy businesses were incentivized, so as military production ramped down, those technical folks could find somewhere in the neighborhood to work. But that would probably still result in short term layoffs and long term instability.

Oddly, the best way for lawmakers to gut that system is to lazily champion the industry and hope someone else cuts their budget, hopefully with another letter after their name. That way they can refocus manufacturing while not taking the political flak for the layoffs. Which will still occur.
 
2012-10-10 08:38:06 AM
If they're worried about the 16,000 jobs that would be at stake if they stop production of the tanks, wouldn't be far more efficient to just take that 3 billion and give it to those 16,000 people? That's what, like 200,000 per person? That should sustain them while they find other jobs.
 
2012-10-10 08:40:33 AM
Somehow this will end with the tanks being sold to suburban police departments.
 
2012-10-10 08:40:47 AM

ox45tallboy: dittybopper: I don't know where this myth came up that we supplied Iraq with chemical weapons

I don't know... maybe Ted Koppel's 1992 Nightline report? And it's not a myth. The receipts for the rocket assemblies used as delivery mechanisms are on file.


FYL:
As we've been reporting for more than a year now, the Reagan/Bush administrations permitted - and frequently encouraged - the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.

Chemicals, and weapons. Not "chemical weapons". An important distinction. Yeah, we sent a minor amount of weaponry, and some chemicals, but not chemical weapons. Dual use technology also includes stuff like advanced computers.

The major help we provided to Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war though was training, intelligence (this is perhaps the biggest aid we gave them, satellite and SIGINT support), and we also facilitated the transfer of spare parts for their (mainly) Soviet weapons systems. We didn't make them or sell them, just helped to arrange for their transfer.

Is it surprising that we helped Iraq in the 1980? Hell no. They were fighting Iran, which had held US hostages for 444 days during the Carter Administration, and which considered the United States to be the "Great Satan".

As I also pointed out, they got some materials from the US that can (and in retrospect were) used to at least investigate biological weapons research, under the guise of agricultural research. But they didn't actually *USE* biological weapons at all.

dittybopper: We didn't even significantly arm Iraq: most of their weapons systems are either European in origin, or came from the Soviet Union/Russia.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you.


Really, let's look at the major weapons systems of the pre-2003 Iraqi Army.

US Tanks (M47 Patton): 20
Soviet/Warsaw Pact/PRC tanks (various makes): 9,200

They also had a relatively minor amount of US artillery, US APCs (Vietnam era M113s), and a few US general purpose helicopters. All of their rockets and missiles were of Warsaw Pact/PRC origin, except for some from Germany, France, and Brazil.

Same deal with the Iraqi Air Force:

Iraqi Air Force strength at start of war, losses, flights to Iran and remaining aircraft after war.[11]
Aircraft 1990 destroyed damaged to Iran survived
France Mirage F1EQ 76 23 6 24 23
France Mirage F1K (Kuwaiti) 8 2 2 0 4
USSR MiG-23BN 38 17 0 4 18
USSR Su-20 18 4 2 4 8
USSR Su-22R 10 1 0 0 9
USSR Su-22M2 24 2 6 5 11
USSR Su-22M3 16 7 0 9 0
USSR Su-22M4 28 7 0 15 6
USSR Su-24MK 30 5 0 24 1
USSR SU-25 66 31 8 7 20
USSR MiG-21/China F7 236 65 46 0 115
USSR MiG-23ML 39 14 1 7 17
USSR MiG-23MF 14 2 5 0 7
USSR MiG-23MS 15 2 4 0 9
USSR MiG-25RB 9 3 3 0 3
USSR MiG-25PDS 19 13 1 0 5
USSR MiG-29 37 17 4 4 12
USSR MiG-23UM 21 8 0 1 12
USSR Tu-16 3 3 0 0 0
China Xian H-6 4 4 0 0 0
USSR AN-26 5 0 3 0 2
USSR Il-76 19 3 1 15 0
France dassault Falcon 20 2 0 0 2 0
France dassault Falcon 50 3 0 0 3 0
USA Lockheed Jetstar 6 4 0 1 1
USSR MiG-25U 7 3 2 0 2
USSR Su-22-UM3 25 3 1 0 21
Czechoslovakia L-39 67 0 1 0 66
Brazil Tucano 78 1 6 0 64
Switzerland FFA AS-202 Bravo 34 5 5 0 17
Eloris trainer 12 0 0 0 12
United Kingdom Jet Provost 15 0 0 0 15
BK-117 14 1 6 0 6
France Mirage F1BQ 10 0 0 0 10
USSR MiG-29UB 4 0 0 0 4


The only US aircraft they had prior to the Gulf War was 6 Lockheed JetStars, which are business class jets, not combat aircraft. 

All of their small arms were Soviet designed and of USSR, Warsaw Pact, or PRC in origin.
 
2012-10-10 08:40:55 AM
dittybopper:
Don't make the classic mistake of projecting the last war you fought into the future.


Yeah, isn't it annoying when people attempt to hilariously shoehorn past events into a projection of the future when they're not at all comparable?


dittybopper: Funny thing about isolationism: We tried that in the first half of the last century, and we still ended up getting dragged into a couple of world wars, and we were unprepared for both.
 
2012-10-10 08:41:34 AM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: /Seriously, where the fark is the Tea Party when wasteful Pentagon boondoggles are at issue?


Watching Red Dawn for the 97th time.
 
2012-10-10 08:41:34 AM
Lima, OHIO.

You'd think there was an election going on or something.
 
2012-10-10 08:41:40 AM
Tanks? Really? How about no.
 
2012-10-10 08:43:01 AM

liam76: Nope, he needs it spent there (his state), and on a company that has donated to him.


Fine! Spend it on infrastructure!
 
2012-10-10 08:43:49 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Somehow this will end with the tanks being sold to suburban police departments.


That'll be fun..

(BOOM! CRASH!) 'Hey, that's my living room wall!' 'You're under arrest for failure to pay child support!'
 
2012-10-10 08:44:07 AM

dittybopper: ox45tallboy: I mean, it was decades between our sale of chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein and our invasion on the pretext that he had the audacity to actually use them.

We didn't sell chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein. We sold them intelligence during the Iran/Iraq war, and they bought some biological samples that they could weaponize on the open market from American sources, and that's about it.

It was *GERMANY* who sold Iraq the equipment: 52% of Iraq's chemical weapons equipment came from Germany, with much of the rest of the production equipment coming from France (21%) and Austria (16%). The balance came from a number of sources, none of it American. Actual chemicals (like Mustard Gas, and precursors for nerve agents) came from Singapore, Holland, Egypt, India, and Luxembourg. China and Spain provided actual weapons to be filled with chemical weapons (ie., artillery shells, bombs, etc.).

I don't know where this myth came up that we supplied Iraq with chemical weapons, but it's false. We didn't even significantly arm Iraq: most of their weapons systems are either European in origin, or came from the Soviet Union/Russia.

Their nuclear program was entirely French in origin.

That is why France, Germany, and Russia were dead set against the Iraq war: Saddam Hussein was deep in hock to them for all the weapons he got from them, and hadn't been able to pay them back due to economic sanctions, and if he got toppled, they stood to lose all that money. Don't kid yourself into thinking it was for humanitarian reasons.

That's not to say the justification for the Iraq war was 100% kosher either, just that governmental opposition to it from those countries was motivated not by concerns for the people of Iraq, but the fear that a new government in Iraq wouldn't pay for the stuff the Hussein regime bought largely on credit.


lemme get this straight...

youre advocating the stance that the Arms manufacturers of these countries were able to exert enough pressure on their respective govts over losing arms sales to saddams regimes that they should risk a series diplomatic schism with the US? I call shenanigans.

aint buyin' it.

the rest of the West didnt go with us into iraq because it was a fool's errand, based on BS intel, and their electorates were against it. the ones who went either went in because they couldnt stand the thought of breaking ranks with the US even when their electorates were overwhelmlingly against it (as was the case with the UK), went in in very limited capacity enough to uphold good stand with the US but not really fundamentally contribute and would leave soon (like Italy or Spain), or were hoping to gain washington's favors (like poland ukraine and others).
 
2012-10-10 08:45:30 AM

dittybopper: dletter: Also, maybe it is just me, but, any wars we'll get into, probably sooner than later, will have little need for tanks.

Don't make the classic mistake of projecting the last war you fought into the future.

Besides which, we used tanks extensively in 1991 and in 2003, because we were fighting conventionally armored opponents.


Well, I wasn't saying that 3 years from now, we'd not need tanks. And, I am not saying that we'd NEVER need tanks in wars going way forward.

But, sounds like we have a LOT of tanks sitting out there, that need little to no repair to be ready to deploy. So, other than because some region (and a region very close to me in Ohio) doesn't want to lose jobs... why do we need to just keep paying for tanks that each probably cost what we spend on PBS each year, which we definitely need to defund, amirite?
 
2012-10-10 08:45:38 AM

dittybopper: The only US aircraft they had prior to the Gulf War was 6 Lockheed JetStars, which are business class jets, not combat aircraft.

All of their small arms were Soviet designed and of USSR, Warsaw Pact, or PRC in origin.


You missed the other stuff I said. We covertly helped them to acquire quite a bit of non-US made armaments. And we supplied them with plenty of intel on the US-made stuff Iran was using.
 
2012-10-10 08:47:46 AM
Yeah, I get that you're trying to bring make-work jerbs to your constituents, but maybe you could have them build something useful. I unno, I figure the people who build tanks would probably be more or less the same people we'd engage if we wanted to build a rail transit system that didn't suck. Maybe just do that instead.

Ok, so that would put the airlines out of business. Well, have the guys in that industry make farking spaceships for NASA.

Hey look at that. We're saving money, creating jobs, building infrastructure that people actually use, and doing cutting edge research. Maybe I should run for congress.

/ But we'll all be sorry when China invades and we don't have all those tanks lying around anymore.
 
2012-10-10 08:47:46 AM

ox45tallboy: dittybopper: Not really.

A robot designed to build an SUV isn't going to be able to build a tank. Something designed to handle parts that weigh a couple hundred pounds isn't going to be able to handle parts that weigh thousands, and simply tack-welding parts together (as is done for a lot of auto body parts) ain't gonna cut it for armor plate.

It's more than just reprogramming the robots that make Tahoes and Suburbans.

But what it isn't is creating a whole new factory from scratch. The assembly lines are in place, complete with tools and equipment and people trained to use them, as well as managers that know how to get the most out of their employees and facilities. Yes, some things would need to be changed. This is why it would take a few months. But it would not necessitate completely building new factories and training new personnel from scratch.


But you've got to build new tooling (ie., the robots and such), probably beef up the cranes and other stuff and perhaps even the floor depending on the factory.

Building new production equipment alone to build tanks just so that you can *START* preliminary production is going to take time. It's specialized equipment. It's not just a matter of retraining people and reprogramming robots (which also takes time, btw).
 
2012-10-10 08:48:43 AM

dletter: But, sounds like we have a LOT of tanks sitting out there, that need little to no repair to be ready to deploy. So, other than because some region (and a region very close to me in Ohio) doesn't want to lose jobs... why do we need to just keep paying for tanks that each probably cost what we spend on PBS each year, which we definitely need to defund, amirite?


And, as I pointed upthread, the next thing you know, someone will get the bright idea of selling all these tanks that are "just sitting there" to some country's government that we'll soon be supporting the overthrow of, which will necessitate even more weapons.
 
2012-10-10 08:48:59 AM

ox45tallboy: I don't believe for one second that Hosni Mubarak's Egyptian government that had been in place for three decades went from "cool" to "needs to go" in only four years. What happened between 2007, when we sold him 125 Abrams battle tanks, as well as ammunition and training, and 2011 when we supported the uprising against him? If he was that bad, why the hell were we selling him tanks?


He was never that bad, at least according to American foreign policy. Our biggest ally in the Mid-east, minus Israel. But once the uprising started it forced America's hand. He was toast and everyone knew it. No need to waste political capital in Cairo on someone whose check was finally cashed.
 
2012-10-10 08:50:29 AM
Factories can be retooled and started up again; it would take us YEARS to go through enough tanks to warrant doing that anyways, so it's not like we wouldn't have time.

What I don't get / love: We hear all the time from the Republicans, right wing shrill pundits, and troll accounts that government spending doesn't create jobs. But cutting military spending causes people to lose jobs. It's almost as if they're full of shiat.
 
2012-10-10 08:50:46 AM

ox45tallboy: GAT_00: We waste money maintaining an active fleet of aircraft carriers larger than the entire rest of the world combined for absolutely no reason.

Okay, I'm with you on all the others, but the aircraft carriers are just cool as sh*t, not to mention intimidating as f*ck when you've got one parked 30 nautical miles from your coastline.

However, they are ridiculously expensive, and with all the military bases all over the world that we're currently supporting, virtually all of which have airports, we could probably do without them.

But they're still really f*cking cool.


Why not close the bases and just keep the carriers? Which are mobile bases.

/completely ridiculous premise, but it appeals to me.
 
2012-10-10 08:51:30 AM

dittybopper: But you've got to build new tooling (ie., the robots and such), probably beef up the cranes and other stuff and perhaps even the floor depending on the factory.

Building new production equipment alone to build tanks just so that you can *START* preliminary production is going to take time. It's specialized equipment. It's not just a matter of retraining people and reprogramming robots (which also takes time, btw).


A matter of months, dude. Look at how we changed over to war production in the 1940's when we didn't even have freakin' computers. They used pencil and paper and very limited communications (think about phone service in the 1940's) and still did it in months.
 
2012-10-10 08:52:43 AM

Sgt Otter: NewportBarGuy: And this is why we can't cut the defense budget. We're at war with our own "Representatives."

The defense contractors know this. Building one F-22 Raptor involves parts or subcontractors in 46 states. You can't tell me that that's a coincidence. That much bi-partisan pork will protect that hangar queen for decades.


This is why we MUST have nice things, whether or not we want or need them.
 
2012-10-10 08:54:00 AM
We can't spend $10 billion on necessary bridge repairs because it's a bad economy, but we NEED to spend $100 billion on tanks and bombers right now.

This is why I don't trust the Republican Party.
 
2012-10-10 08:54:38 AM
Wait a second. Republicans are trying to say that the government creates jobs? HOGWASH!!
 
2012-10-10 08:56:22 AM

BeesNuts: Why not close the bases and just keep the carriers? Which are mobile bases.

/completely ridiculous premise, but it appeals to me.


I still can't figure out why we need so many troops in freakin' Germany. I mean, I think we got the Nazis under control.

But yes, we can do without at least some of the aircraft carriers, and drop a few of the overseas bases down a bit as far as personnel is concerned. Yes, keep them up and operational, but it is silly to keep them fully staffed in the tens of thousands. Hell, lose two aircraft carriers, one new weapons program that the generals don't like, and cut our overseas bases down to half of current personnel, and I think you'll have the 5% drop in military spending.
 
2012-10-10 08:57:01 AM

swahnhennessy: He was never that bad, at least according to American foreign policy. Our biggest ally in the Mid-east, minus Israel. But once the uprising started it forced America's hand. He was toast and everyone knew it. No need to waste political capital in Cairo on someone whose check was finally cashed.


So why in the hell were we selling him tanks?
 
2012-10-10 08:57:26 AM
cdn6.teapartytribune.com

This building is full of Job Creators!

/hotlinked from a tea party website for the lols.
 
2012-10-10 08:58:50 AM

ox45tallboy: BolloxReader: We shut down a tank factory, it ain't reopening. Those workers will be gone by the time they are really needed and the equipment will most likely have been scrapped by the defense contractor.

I have to disagree with you here. Do you ever wonder happened to all those tank and jeep factories after WWII? They went back to making cars, the same thing they were making before WWII.

This is one of the best reasons for keeping manufacturing centers like GM and Chrysler open, and why it was so short-sighted of Romney to say "Let Detroit fail!" - it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to convert an already functioning automobile assembly line, especially one located in a defensively strategic place like the middle of the continent, into war machine production. Trying to convince Japan or Korea to convert their assembly lines into making our tanks for us, however, presents all kinds of logistical difficulties.

Having a strong manufacturing base is essential to our own national security, for precisely the reasons demonstrated in WWII. This does not mean we have to have functioning military production, just the capability for it.


Agreed. We should be focusing on ways to boost the economy so that there is more demand for other high-tech goods that will require skilled engineers to build them.
 
2012-10-10 08:59:20 AM

indylaw: We can't spend $10 billion on necessary bridge repairs because it's a bad economy, but we NEED to spend $100 billion on tanks and bombers right now.

This is why I don't trust the Republican Party.


See, if we elect Republicans, we'll go to war, and they can say, "I told you so!"

If we elect Democrats, and don't go to war, the Republicans can say, "It's a good thing we have such a huge military to act as a deterrent! Look at all the American lives we saved from all this military spending!"
 
2012-10-10 08:59:20 AM

dletter: Also, maybe it is just me, but, any wars we'll get into, probably sooner than later, will have little need for tanks.


THIS. I was under the impression that our military was trending towards a smaller, lighter, more mobile force. Where do freakin' tanks fit into that plan??

It's like keeping buggy-whip factories open, because someday we might have to go back to horse-and-buggy, and BECAUSE JOBS!!
 
2012-10-10 08:59:32 AM
Friggin fiscal responsibility, how does it friggin work??!!
 
2012-10-10 08:59:42 AM

ox45tallboy: And, as I pointed upthread, the next thing you know, someone will get the bright idea of selling all these tanks that are "just sitting there" to some country's government that we'll soon be supporting the overthrow of, which will necessitate even more weapons.


And selling them at a loss to the US government as well.
 
2012-10-10 09:00:15 AM

dittybopper: ox45tallboy: dittybopper: Not really.

A robot designed to build an SUV isn't going to be able to build a tank. Something designed to handle parts that weigh a couple hundred pounds isn't going to be able to handle parts that weigh thousands, and simply tack-welding parts together (as is done for a lot of auto body parts) ain't gonna cut it for armor plate.

It's more than just reprogramming the robots that make Tahoes and Suburbans.

But what it isn't is creating a whole new factory from scratch. The assembly lines are in place, complete with tools and equipment and people trained to use them, as well as managers that know how to get the most out of their employees and facilities. Yes, some things would need to be changed. This is why it would take a few months. But it would not necessitate completely building new factories and training new personnel from scratch.

But you've got to build new tooling (ie., the robots and such), probably beef up the cranes and other stuff and perhaps even the floor depending on the factory.

Building new production equipment alone to build tanks just so that you can *START* preliminary production is going to take time. It's specialized equipment. It's not just a matter of retraining people and reprogramming robots (which also takes time, btw).


Invest time upfront and build factories that are designed to easily be converted from car factories into tank factories? Sure, the initial cost of building the factory is higher, but I'd rather have the government kick money to the auto industry to do something like that, than I would just have them build shiat we don't need.

You could even run drills every so often, where you take one of the car factories out of circulation and build a few tanks, so the employees are ready to go if the shiat hits the fan.

I guess it depends on whether that costs more upfront than what we're doing now.
 
2012-10-10 09:00:46 AM

Satanic_Hamster: We hear all the time from the Republicans, right wing shrill pundits, and troll accounts that government spending doesn't create jobs. But cutting military spending causes people to lose jobs. It's almost as if they're full of shiat.


That knife cuts both ways. The other side argues that all government spending creates jobs, except military spending, which should be cut to the bone.
 
2012-10-10 09:01:45 AM

indylaw: We can't spend $10 billion on necessary bridge repairs because it's a bad economy, but we NEED to spend $100 billion on tanks and bombers right now.

This is why I don't trust the Republican Party.


Think of how much cheaper it will be to simply blow up these failing bridges with tanks and bombers.
 
2012-10-10 09:02:14 AM

ox45tallboy: So why in the hell were we selling him tanks?


The uprising happened pretty quick. Tunisia went and then the dominoes fell. I don't think the State Department was predicting in 2007 that Egypt was due for a fall. It was a stable regime.

That still doesn't answer the underlying question of why we were selling tanks to an authoritarian puppet, but that's another matter entirely.
 
2012-10-10 09:02:42 AM

Arkanaut: Agreed. We should be focusing on ways to boost the economy so that there is more demand for other high-tech goods that will require skilled engineers to build them.


If there's one thing we do have, it's the demand. We just don't have the manufacturing capabilities anymore.

blogs-images.forbes.com
 
2012-10-10 09:03:12 AM
I think it was the old PNAC mission statement that said that it wasn't enough for America to have the world's greatest military; that it also had to be used, in battle, so the money isn't wasted, and so they can profit off that use.
 
2012-10-10 09:03:44 AM
Aren't you glad the Army has all these tanks parked here? Just in case the Russians come and we have to have a big tank battle?
 
2012-10-10 09:04:30 AM

Satanic_Hamster: ox45tallboy: And, as I pointed upthread, the next thing you know, someone will get the bright idea of selling all these tanks that are "just sitting there" to some country's government that we'll soon be supporting the overthrow of, which will necessitate even more weapons.

And selling them at a loss to the US government as well.


Can we just roll all these tanks down to mexico and get this whole war on drugs thing over with?

Or, alternatively, let's sell the tanks to the druglords so we can see where they use them.
 
2012-10-10 09:04:59 AM

GoldSpider: Satanic_Hamster: We hear all the time from the Republicans, right wing shrill pundits, and troll accounts that government spending doesn't create jobs. But cutting military spending causes people to lose jobs. It's almost as if they're full of shiat.

That knife cuts both ways. The other side argues that all government spending creates jobs, except military spending, which should be cut to the bone.


Some people get embarrassed, lying in public like that. But not you Mister Straw Man Fighter! You proudly herp the derp. A Real American Hero, you have been awarded the Clint Eastwood Memorial Empty Chair Debater Medal. Congratulations.
 
2012-10-10 09:05:29 AM

GoldSpider: Satanic_Hamster: We hear all the time from the Republicans, right wing shrill pundits, and troll accounts that government spending doesn't create jobs. But cutting military spending causes people to lose jobs. It's almost as if they're full of shiat.

That knife cuts both ways. The other side argues that all government spending creates jobs, except military spending, which should be cut to the bone.


I dunno, as someone that advocates for deep defense cuts, I fully acknowledge that industry keeps many employed. The horse drawn carriage industry did to at one point as well. If you're no longer needed for any valid defense purpose, you'll lose your job. Maybe become a consultant for whoever we sell the excess to, it's cake work.
 
2012-10-10 09:05:35 AM

serial_crusher: I guess it depends on whether that costs more upfront than what we're doing now.


Yes, and with all the "green" technology, we'll have the M1A4 Abrams Battle Prius.

/Yes, I know, but "Abrams Battle Volt" doesn't roll off the tongue as well. 
 
2012-10-10 09:05:40 AM
Part of the reason that military spending creates fewer jobs than other forms of expenditure is that a large share of that money is either spent overseas or spent on imported goods. By contrast, most of the money generated by spending in areas like education is spent in the United States.

In addition, more of the military dollar goes to capital, as opposed to labor, than do the expenditures in the other job categories. For example, only 1.5% of the price of each F-35 Joint Strike Fighter pays for the labor costs involved in "manufacturing, fabrication, and assembly" work at the plane's main production facility in Fort Worth, Texas. A full 85% of the F-35s costs go for overhead, not for jobs actually fabricating and assembling the aircraft. Link


We have shown the overall employment effects - including direct, indirect, and induced job creation - of spending on the military in contrast with four alternative domestic spending categories: clean energy, health care, education, and increasing household consumption through tax cuts. Specifically, we have shown that spending on all of these alternatives to military spending create substantially more jobs per $1 billion in expenditures relative to military spending. Link, .pdf
 
2012-10-10 09:05:52 AM

ox45tallboy: dittybopper: But you've got to build new tooling (ie., the robots and such), probably beef up the cranes and other stuff and perhaps even the floor depending on the factory.

Building new production equipment alone to build tanks just so that you can *START* preliminary production is going to take time. It's specialized equipment. It's not just a matter of retraining people and reprogramming robots (which also takes time, btw).

A matter of months, dude. Look at how we changed over to war production in the 1940's when we didn't even have freakin' computers. They used pencil and paper and very limited communications (think about phone service in the 1940's) and still did it in months.


Things have gotten many orders of magnitude more complicated since then.
 
2012-10-10 09:06:53 AM
Mitt Romney will endure that the US has enough tanks to keep the Soviets from rolling through the Fulda Gap and conquering our West German allies.
 
2012-10-10 09:07:52 AM

HotWingConspiracy: I dunno, as someone that advocates for deep defense cuts, I fully acknowledge that industry keeps many employed. The horse drawn carriage industry did to at one point as well. If you're no longer needed for any valid defense purpose, you'll lose your job. Maybe become a consultant for whoever we sell the excess to, it's cake work.


So keep the government contracts, but order something else, like civilian government vehicles or computers used for traffic control rather than targeting weapons systems.
 
2012-10-10 09:11:07 AM

HotWingConspiracy: I dunno, as someone that advocates for deep defense cuts, I fully acknowledge that industry keeps many employed. The horse drawn carriage industry did to at one point as well. If you're no longer needed for any valid defense purpose, you'll lose your job. Maybe become a consultant for whoever we sell the excess to, it's cake work.


Same here. The federal government has a greater purpose than a make-work program.

The disingenuous "cut spending but NOT the military!" part of the GOP platform is a big reason why I will not be voting for any Republicans this year.
 
2012-10-10 09:11:26 AM
i30.tinypic.com

"did i farking stutter?"
 
2012-10-10 09:12:31 AM
GOP =/= Fiscal Responsibly
 
2012-10-10 09:12:37 AM

GoldSpider: That knife cuts both ways. The other side argues that all government spending creates jobs, except military spending, which should be cut to the bone.


I think the general argument is what is the most efficient way to create jobs and what spending is beneficial for society.

"Liberals" - Pave roads, build bridges, improve water and sewer treatment, research funding into new technologies, money to municipalities and poor/middle class that will immediately spend it to spur on the economy.

"Conservatives" - Money to no-bid / no competition military contracts that will purchase things we will then just have sit in the a low humidity storage depot or will literally blow it up.

Hmmmm. What's the most beneficial spending that will help crate more jobs.
 
2012-10-10 09:13:26 AM
Instead of paintball, let's play tankball.
 
2012-10-10 09:13:31 AM

liam76: Things have gotten many orders of magnitude more complicated since then.


*sigh*

Yes, but so have our capabilities. So have computers and machines used for production. So have programmable robots that can flawlessly weld the same seam nonstop. So have robots that can lift and maneuver objects far too heavy for humans to pick up.

Do you realize how complicated it was to manufacture a simple analog telephone in the 1940's? Now, think about the fact that today unskilled Chinese workers are assembling iPhones by hand, because all of the hardest parts are done by machines.
 
2012-10-10 09:15:16 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: We have shown the overall employment effects - including direct, indirect, and induced job creation - of spending on the military in contrast with four alternative domestic spending categories: clean energy, health care, education, and increasing household consumption through tax cuts. Specifically, we have shown that spending on all of these alternatives to military spending create substantially more jobs per $1 billion in expenditures relative to military spending. Link, .pdf


Yes, but weekend warriors and armchair Rambos can't furiously stroke their flacid cawks to a Military Channel feature on building clean energy. Let's keep our eye on what's important here.
 
2012-10-10 09:16:05 AM
If the same tax money and labor went into some other thing it would be socialismz.
 
2012-10-10 09:16:56 AM

ox45tallboy: BolloxReader: We shut down a tank factory, it ain't reopening. Those workers will be gone by the time they are really needed and the equipment will most likely have been scrapped by the defense contractor.

I have to disagree with you here. Do you ever wonder happened to all those tank and jeep factories after WWII? They went back to making cars, the same thing they were making before WWII.

This is one of the best reasons for keeping manufacturing centers like GM and Chrysler open, and why it was so short-sighted of Romney to say "Let Detroit fail!" - it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to convert an already functioning automobile assembly line, especially one located in a defensively strategic place like the middle of the continent, into war machine production. Trying to convince Japan or Korea to convert their assembly lines into making our tanks for us, however, presents all kinds of logistical difficulties.

Having a strong manufacturing base is essential to our own national security, for precisely the reasons demonstrated in WWII. This does not mean we have to have functioning military production, just the capability for it.


Allegedly Yamamoto saw the assembly lines in Detroit and said not to, "awaken the sleeping giant," of U.S. production. He could see tanks coming off the assembly lines like Fords.

farm5.staticflickr.com
 
2012-10-10 09:20:35 AM

BolloxReader: We shut down a tank factory, it ain't reopening. Those workers will be gone by the time they are really needed and the equipment will most likely have been scrapped by the defense contractor.


We will likely never have a dire need to new tanks on such short notice that we couldn't ramp up production again.

What we could do, instead, is mothball the equipment we don't need and retool the factory and retrain its employees to build other things. You have equipment, facilities and experienced, skilled labor freed up. That tank factory could be making parts for wind turbines, or medical equipment like MRI machines, or dredges to fix our sediment-clogged waterways, or any number of things requiring heavy industrial support that we actually need.

I don't want to see idle hands either, but I also don't want to see time, resources and money get wasted for bullsh*t political reasons.
=Smidge=
 
2012-10-10 09:21:01 AM
We've got money for weapons and war, but when it comes to infrastructure, education, and helping the average American citizen, well, we've all got to tighten our belts, you see... Not the wealthy, of course, though.
 
2012-10-10 09:21:29 AM

ox45tallboy: Fine! Spend it on infrastructure!


THIS. I guarantee every single state involved in these defense contracts has an interstate bridge that could be replaced, a national park that could be upgraded, an airport control tower that desperately needs to be remodeled, some National Guard armories using furniture from the 1960s... anything. We're not saying to keep the money out of the economy. Just spend it more wisely... we don't need to buy new tanks when there are 2000 sitting unused in a parking lot. We don't need to buy fighters that will never be flown in anything but an airshow.

It's not the taxpayers' fault that defense contractors haven't figured out how to diversify their production lines. Apparently it's too hard for a company like General Dynamics to build Abrams' and Strykers during defense acquisition cycles, and then switch to building bulldozers and SWAT vans any other year.

Being able to change an industrial line like that just seems like some magical science-fiction pipe dream. You know, like we had in that far future time of the 1940s.
 
2012-10-10 09:24:09 AM
We have to be prepared for the war against Iran that Romney promised Netanyahu yesterday.
 
2012-10-10 09:24:25 AM

InmanRoshi: dittybopper:
Don't make the classic mistake of projecting the last war you fought into the future.

Yeah, isn't it annoying when people attempt to hilariously shoehorn past events into a projection of the future when they're not at all comparable?

dittybopper: Funny thing about isolationism: We tried that in the first half of the last century, and we still ended up getting dragged into a couple of world wars, and we were unprepared for both.



Both of you will really like this article by Jon Huntsman. Link 

"In the aftermath of the failure of the super committee, we are facing cuts in defense. Yet there has still been little discussion about overall defense spending priorities and how we must transform our defense infrastructure for the 21st century.
..........
These approaches miss the target in two respects. First, they let resources drive strategy, rather than using strategy to drive force structure and capabilities. Second, they fail to fundamentally alter our defense posture -- so any short-term savings will be quickly erased."
 
2012-10-10 09:24:30 AM

NewportBarGuy: I support stimulus measures in a down economy, but we have to at least be reasonable. If we pump that same amount of money into infrastructure, we can probably keep most of these people employed and not wind up with things we don't need. If we need to train them into a transitional field, then do it. Or give them a lower cost project to replace the MRAP which we'll need for more mobility.


If we support infrastructure, there will be even more jobs down the road. A location with good roads, power generation, a strong grid, and excellent communications attracts employers from other places. Tanks that just sit around? Not so much.
 
2012-10-10 09:25:13 AM
FTFA: If the U.S. pauses tank production and refurbishment it will hurt the nation's industrial economy, lawmakers say.

But we can still laugh at the Soviets and their proven failure of a system where they attempted to control the economy through manufacturing demand, right?
 
2012-10-10 09:25:42 AM
WAIT, I just got a brilliant idea
hugereviews.com
 
2012-10-10 09:25:44 AM

BolloxReader: Those workers will be gone by the time they are really needed


We don't need any more tanks.
 
2012-10-10 09:26:03 AM
You guys have the wrong idea, we have extra tanks, that means we need to find somoene to piss off to want to shoot at them. Time for a new war!
 
2012-10-10 09:26:54 AM

NewportBarGuy: We have plenty for the next few wars


The fact that people think like this is what's wrong with this country. How about we not have any wars?
 
2012-10-10 09:27:07 AM
When an extraterrestrial ground invasion force cometh, you'll be glad the GOP was thinking long term.
 
2012-10-10 09:27:23 AM

liam76: ox45tallboy: dittybopper: But you've got to build new tooling (ie., the robots and such), probably beef up the cranes and other stuff and perhaps even the floor depending on the factory.

Building new production equipment alone to build tanks just so that you can *START* preliminary production is going to take time. It's specialized equipment. It's not just a matter of retraining people and reprogramming robots (which also takes time, btw).

A matter of months, dude. Look at how we changed over to war production in the 1940's when we didn't even have freakin' computers. They used pencil and paper and very limited communications (think about phone service in the 1940's) and still did it in months.

Things have gotten many orders of magnitude more complicated since then.


Not if you're a Republican. It's still 1942 to them.
 
2012-10-10 09:27:58 AM

Citrate1007: GOP =/= Fiscal Responsibly


Normally I'd agreed with you, but in this case of Fiscal Irresponsibility, the level of bipartisanship is as equivalent as it gets.
 
2012-10-10 09:28:11 AM

GoldSpider: Satanic_Hamster: We hear all the time from the Republicans, right wing shrill pundits, and troll accounts that government spending doesn't create jobs. But cutting military spending causes people to lose jobs. It's almost as if they're full of shiat.

That knife cuts both ways. The other side argues that all government spending creates jobs, except military spending, which should be cut to the bone.


Nobody NOBODY has said that military spending should be cut to the bone. Asshole.
 
2012-10-10 09:28:52 AM
Tanks.
Tanks a lot.
 
2012-10-10 09:30:07 AM

Satanic_Hamster: "Conservatives" - Money to no-bid / no competition military contracts that will purchase things we will then just have sit in the a low humidity storage depot or will literally blow it up.


Nope.


ox45tallboy: liam76: Things have gotten many orders of magnitude more complicated since then.

*sigh*

Yes, but so have our capabilities. So have computers and machines used for production. So have programmable robots that can flawlessly weld the same seam nonstop. So have robots that can lift and maneuver objects far too heavy for humans to pick up.


Setting up those robots, computers and machines takes moneth, if not years. And that is after you have a wroking prototype.

Look at how long it takes to design a military plane 1940's compared to today. Some of that is DoD acquisition rules, but most of it is from the fact that were are deisgning things that are far more effecient and complicated. the testing of anew tank or aircraft today take slonger than it used to take to design, build and set up assembly lines for them in the 40's.


Do you realize how complicated it was to manufacture a simple analog telephone in the 1940's? Now, think about the fact that today unskilled Chinese workers are assembling iPhones by hand, because all of the hardest parts are done by machines.

How long do you htink it would take to set up a factory for phiones then vs now?
 
2012-10-10 09:30:28 AM
Let the factory shut down. If they are needed again some other contractor will be bootstrappy enough to open up a factory for $3 Billion a year. Also my district has the Hum-vee up-armor factory in it. They would be able to recondition outdated existing equipment until the other factory is online.

I was going to suggest our consulates and embassy might be able to use them, but having military equipment would probably make them more of a target than any benefit they might supply. I also don't want tanks in the hands of local police and sheriff departments.
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-10-10 09:31:37 AM
i1162.photobucket.com
i1162.photobucket.com
i1162.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-10 09:32:32 AM

TheGogmagog: Let the factory shut down. If they are needed again some other contractor will be bootstrappy enough to open up a factory for $3 Billion a year. Also my district has the Hum-vee up-armor factory in it. They would be able to recondition outdated existing equipment until the other factory is online.

I was going to suggest our consulates and embassy might be able to use them, but having military equipment would probably make them more of a target than any benefit they might supply. I also don't want tanks in the hands of local police and sheriff departments.


Is that a Cobra logo on the grill?
 
2012-10-10 09:33:12 AM
This is just more enforcement of what we are told are "myths" or "urban legrnds", the stories about military units having to use up all of their budget is true, too, although people try and tell us all of the time that it never happens. My bro-in-law recently retired from the Air Force, and had been running his squadron for years. He was constantly trying to figure out what to blow their budget on at the end of the year.

Three examples were a large screen theater system, a popcorn machine and a snow cone machine for the break room. Not because they needed this stuff, but because if he didn't spend it, his budget would get slashed for the next year. He was getting annoyed with having to constantly think of new unnecessary shiat...
 
2012-10-10 09:35:04 AM
Spreading the "action" is how Congress gets support for projects. I worked on the ISS and traveled all over the country doing support. I don't think there were 100 engineers total on that part of the project, but there were seven sites, seven companies, and a couple hundred NASA administrators involved.
 
2012-10-10 09:35:22 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: We have shown the overall employment effects - including direct, indirect, and induced job creation - of spending on the military in contrast with four alternative domestic spending categories: clean energy, health care, education, and increasing household consumption through tax cuts. Specifically, we have shown that spending on all of these alternatives to military spending create substantially more jobs per $1 billion in expenditures relative to military spending.


That's an interesting read, thank you. I'm going to send that to my Congressman.
 
2012-10-10 09:35:42 AM

liam76: Satanic_Hamster: "Conservatives" - Money to no-bid / no competition military contracts that will purchase things we will then just have sit in the a low humidity storage depot or will literally blow it up.

Nope.


Wow, you showed me. You completely refudiated my point on how the military procurement process is hopelessly corrupt, on how major contracts are given without competitive bids, how Congress keeps European/Korean arms makers out of the bid process, how the US defense contractors have consolidated to the point where there's no competition on major contracts, etc.
 
2012-10-10 09:35:50 AM
Good points but you had to add a single line of derp. Romney said he would let them go bankrupt. Not fail. Guess what? They went bankrupt. Oh noes. Romney would have allowed normal bankruptcy, not the illegal restructured bankruptcy Obama pushed for to reward unions. Ask gm how easy it is to get private loans now that their original creditors were pushed behind unions in bankruptcy.
 
2012-10-10 09:36:14 AM

liam76: Setting up those robots, computers and machines takes moneth, if not years. And that is after you have a wroking prototype.


We already have a working prototype. We have people with experience building them. We are discussing production, not R&D. World of difference.

liam76: How long do you htink it would take to set up a factory for phiones then vs now?


About the same. Yes, the product itself is infinitely more complicated, but the materials are already in production, and most of the complicated stuff is down to programming the robots and training the staff to tighten the screws here, here, and here.

Don't forget about Steve Jobs and the Gorilla Glass in the first iPhone.

Months, not years.
 
2012-10-10 09:36:27 AM

TheGogmagog: I was going to suggest our consulates and embassy might be able to use them, but having military equipment would probably make them more of a target than any benefit they might supply. I also don't want tanks in the hands of local police and sheriff departments.


You know , we really can't send whatever military forces we desire into a foreign country to protect our embassies and consulates.

Do you think the Russian Consul in LA could drive around the city in a T-90 if wanted to?
 
2012-10-10 09:37:21 AM
So much for the 'invisible hand of the free market'.
 
2012-10-10 09:38:02 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Do you think the Russian Consul in LA could drive around the city in a T-90 if wanted to?


No, but there's alternatives:
images.thetruthaboutcars.com
 
2012-10-10 09:38:06 AM

Mikey1969: Three examples were a large screen theater system, a popcorn machine and a snow cone machine for the break room. Not because they needed this stuff, but because if he didn't spend it, his budget would get slashed for the next year. He was getting annoyed with having to constantly think of new unnecessary shiat...


I know this is unfair to your brother-in-law and he's definitely not at fault, but I can't help imagining that the local schools (you know, within 2000 miles of base...) could probably do with some new computers...
 
2012-10-10 09:39:30 AM

MyRandomName: Good points but you had to add a single line of derp. Romney said he would let them go bankrupt. Not fail. Guess what? They went bankrupt. Oh noes. Romney would have allowed normal bankruptcy, not the illegal restructured bankruptcy Obama pushed for to reward unions. Ask gm how easy it is to get private loans now that their original creditors were pushed behind unions in bankruptcy.


Well, you then proceeded to add several lines of derp, so I wouldn't complain if I were you.

Romney's idea of bankruptcy, as evidenced by the happenings at Bain, is to screw over the employee pension plans and keep all the money as "consultant fees". Our auto workers deserve better than that.
 
2012-10-10 09:40:36 AM

MyRandomName: Good points but you had to add a single line of derp. Romney said he would let them go bankrupt. Not fail. Guess what? They went bankrupt. Oh noes. Romney would have allowed normal bankruptcy, not the illegal restructured bankruptcy Obama pushed for to reward unions. Ask gm how easy it is to get private loans now that their original creditors were pushed behind unions in bankruptcy.


If it was illegal why isn't Romney suing?

And I like how in one sentence you say they "went bankrupt" just like Romney said they should, and in the next you say it was "illegal restructured bankruptcy"

Get it together man.
 
2012-10-10 09:40:52 AM

MyRandomName: Good points but you had to add a single line of derp. Romney said he would let them go bankrupt. Not fail. Guess what? They went bankrupt. Oh noes. Romney would have allowed normal bankruptcy, not the illegal restructured bankruptcy Obama pushed for to reward unions. Ask gm how easy it is to get private loans now that their original creditors were pushed behind unions in bankruptcy.


1/10. You say it with such conviction, I bet you actually believe yourself.
 
2012-10-10 09:41:18 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Congress keeps European/Korean arms makers out of the bid process


Actually, I'm in favor of keeping production necessary for wartime here in the continental US. It's not that I don't trust overseas manufacturers, it's that it's far easier for an enemy to disrupt a supply line that runs halfway around the world.
 
2012-10-10 09:43:15 AM

coeyagi: 1/10. You say it with such conviction, I bet you actually believe yourself.


He's here to provoke a reaction, not carry on coherent discussion.
 
2012-10-10 09:43:21 AM

TheGogmagog: [24.media.tumblr.com image 850x668]


Man, I'll bet the guy driving that thing has a really big dick. Just ask him.
 
2012-10-10 09:43:54 AM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: TheGogmagog: [24.media.tumblr.com image 850x668]

Man, I'll bet the guy driving that thing has a really big dick. Just ask him.


And probably pulls a muscle getting into it.
 
2012-10-10 09:44:44 AM

ox45tallboy: coeyagi: 1/10. You say it with such conviction, I bet you actually believe yourself.

He's here to provoke a reaction, not carry on coherent discussion.


Indeed. Hence my restraint at actually responding to him.

If there's "Randomness" in your ALT name, chances are, you're here to derp.
 
2012-10-10 09:45:39 AM

Mikey1969: This is just more enforcement of what we are told are "myths" or "urban legrnds", the stories about military units having to use up all of their budget is true, too, although people try and tell us all of the time that it never happens. My bro-in-law recently retired from the Air Force, and had been running his squadron for years. He was constantly trying to figure out what to blow their budget on at the end of the year.

Three examples were a large screen theater system, a popcorn machine and a snow cone machine for the break room. Not because they needed this stuff, but because if he didn't spend it, his budget would get slashed for the next year. He was getting annoyed with having to constantly think of new unnecessary shiat...


Your brother's finance folks weren't doing their job. They knew how much money they would receive as soon as the defense bill was signed in a given fiscal year.

My agency has about a $4 million budget, and we have it completely prioritized by April, along with three tiered-priority lists of unfunded requests. As soon as additional funds are freed up or we receive growback on a completed purchase, we execute one of the unfunded requests. We've had no less than 99.4% budget execution since FY03, with a distinct lack of popcorn machines.

Also, it's a complete myth that not executing your budget will result in a cut the following year. If one military program knows it will have excess funds, thy can turn those funds back in by May/June timeframe and let it be spent by another program. When the beancounters look at programs for the following year - what do you think is more favorable? Program A who was responsible, turned money in early instead of wasting it, but can show exactly what they would do with an increase? Or Program B, who buys useless crap every year but keeps asking for the same amount (or more)?
 
2012-10-10 09:47:17 AM

Graffito: Nobody NOBODY has said that military spending should be cut to the bone. Asshole.


Maybe we should. Why u so mad?
 
2012-10-10 09:49:18 AM

coeyagi: Indeed. Hence my restraint at actually responding to him.


Hey, I responded as well...
 
2012-10-10 09:49:43 AM

clkeagle: When the beancounters look at programs for the following year - what do you think is more favorable?Program A who was responsible, turned money in early instead of wasting it, but can show exactly what they would do with an increase? Or Program B, who buys useless crap every year but keeps asking for the same amount (or more)?


Is the Congressman form the district Program A is based in more or less powerful than the Congressman for Project B's district?
 
2012-10-10 09:51:23 AM
Remember kids, building infrastructure = socialism, building useless war machines = patriotism.
 
2012-10-10 09:53:37 AM
Meanwhile...
www.onedigitallife.com
 
2012-10-10 09:53:55 AM

keylock71: We've got money for weapons and war, but when it comes to infrastructure, education, and helping the average American citizen, well, we've all got to tighten our belts, you see... Not the wealthy, of course, though.


The united states spends more on education than any other country by pupil. Stop this lie that there is no spending on education. The problem is administration has tripled in size sucking money from actual classrooms. Stop this myth of no education spending. It is just silly.
 
2012-10-10 09:54:19 AM

TheGogmagog: I also don't want tanks in the hands of local police and sheriff departments.


What the fark does "Free Speech Unit" mean? That thing is an abomination on so many levels.
 
2012-10-10 09:55:32 AM

swahnhennessy: That still doesn't answer the underlying question of why we were selling tanks to an authoritarian puppet, but that's another matter entirely.


The same reason why we have been selling them arms for decades. We were bribing them not to attack Israel.
 
2012-10-10 09:56:06 AM

NewportBarGuy: Sgt Otter: Building one F-22 Raptor involves parts or subcontractors in 46 states. You can't tell me that that's a coincidence.

It's f*cking ridiculous and nary a word of outrage is spoken on the Hill or on the news. We just know that the money flows to "jobs" whether we need them or not for what they produce.

snip

The F-22, 46 State solution only proves the point. Make it uncuttable and you'll make these lifers make choices on whether they want to keep their seat, not what is in the best interest of the country security-wise or financially.


And yet people scream and nash their teeth about those folks on welfare. How is this any different?
to stay elected politicians supports spending gov't money on projects/products that we the people don't need. It is welfare for the people producing these products/projects. Likewise keeping those projects funded keeps politicians in jobs. It is welfare for the politicians.

All on the taxpayers backs.

Term limits for politicians.
Minimum budget amount required to be spent paying down the debt.
line item veto or single issue legislation.
Reform to the civil legal system to a looser pays system.

that's what we need in this country.
Not a bunch of military equipment that sits around unused and unwanted
 
2012-10-10 09:57:13 AM

MyRandomName: keylock71: We've got money for weapons and war, but when it comes to infrastructure, education, and helping the average American citizen, well, we've all got to tighten our belts, you see... Not the wealthy, of course, though.

The united states spends more on education than any other country by pupil. Stop this lie that there is no spending on education. The problem is administration has tripled in size sucking money from actual classrooms. Stop this myth of no education spending. It is just silly.


Exactly - by pupil. Not by school. There are a few extremely rich schools where they get what they need and the rest, well, they have to get bootstrappy.

That's like saying there's no hunger in the US because we spend enough on food to feed everyone.
 
2012-10-10 09:57:25 AM

Satanic_Hamster: liam76: Satanic_Hamster: "Conservatives" - Money to no-bid / no competition military contracts that will purchase things we will then just have sit in the a low humidity storage depot or will literally blow it up.

Nope.

Wow, you showed me. You completely refudiated my point on how the military procurement process is hopelessly corrupt, on how major contracts are given without competitive bids, how Congress keeps European/Korean arms makers out of the bid process, how the US defense contractors have consolidated to the point where there's no competition on major contracts, etc.


I refuted your "Money to no-bid / no competition military contracts" with as much info as you presented.

You then brought som other points (which are also BS, except for the corruptnesses).

You want some proof?

The most common no-bid complaint I hear about is support contracts for KBR in Iraq in 2003. They actually bid on it.

European/Korean arms dealers are only kept out if there is strategic or cclassified need. Look at Agusta Westland's role in the presidential Helo.

Name the last major defense contract with no bid. LAst I can think of (major contract) was JAGM, which had a number of bids (but dies under current funding). Before that there was JSF, which had multiple bids.

The process is corrupt, but you spitting out BS points doesn't help stop that.

ox45tallboy: liam76: Setting up those robots, computers and machines takes moneth, if not years. And that is after you have a wroking prototype.

We already have a working prototype. We have people with experience building them. We are discussing production, not R&D. World of difference.


Sorry, Ithough you were talking abotu picking up out of no real research to going cutting edge like we did in WWII.

We don't employ those people (on those types of projects) and we lose that experience. however the army is talking about waiting three years, not abandoning tanks so I agree we aren't hurt by waiting this case.

ox45tallboy: About the same. Yes, the product itself is infinitely more complicated, but the materials are already in production, and most of the complicated stuff is down to programming the robots and training the staff to tighten the screws here, here, and here.


Military vehilces use a shiat ton of things that you can't get as commercial off the shelf products.

ox45tallboy: Don't forget about Steve Jobs and the Gorilla Glass in the first iPhone.


He didn't do it right or make the deadline, Iphone flops or is late. With military equip you have consequences on another level.
 
2012-10-10 09:58:24 AM

MyRandomName: keylock71: We've got money for weapons and war, but when it comes to infrastructure, education, and helping the average American citizen, well, we've all got to tighten our belts, you see... Not the wealthy, of course, though.

The united states spends more on education than any other country by pupil. Stop this lie that there is no spending on education. The problem is administration has tripled in size sucking money from actual classrooms. Stop this myth of no education spending. It is just silly.


The United States spends more on it's military than the rest of the world COMBINED.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-10-10 09:59:20 AM
I agree with the idea of keeping a technological base and skills base in place, but as far as building tanks go, they are not as complicated as aircraft or submarines. We have a huge surplus of them. Also, industiral fabrication techniques are poised on the brink of a complete revolution. Whatever replaces the Abrams will likely use a lot of 3-d printing techniques for some major components, as well as new-generation materials as part of the armor and in the engines. Preserving a 20th-century production line may not be relevant to building 21st-century versions of the product. What makes more sense to me in the case of the tank factory is to shut down current production and retain a minimum staff working on developing the next-gen techniques and tools to be ready when demand returns. You would think a tech company like GD would just invest some profits into that kind of future-proofing on their own, but you would be wrong; shareholder value would not tolerate making actual strategic investments over a long time.
 
2012-10-10 10:00:13 AM

Epoch_Zero: Exactly - by pupil. Not by school. There are a few extremely rich schools where they get what they need and the rest, well, they have to get bootstrappy.


Would you support consolidating school districts to the county level (in states where it's not already so) and change the funding mechanism from local property taxes to a county income tax?
 
2012-10-10 10:00:36 AM

MyRandomName: The united states spends more on education than any other country by pupil. Stop this lie that there is no spending on education. The problem is administration has tripled in size sucking money from actual classrooms. Stop this myth of no education spending. It is just silly.


Sure they do, if you include all the private school spending and ridiculous expenditures of state universities such as paying Snooki $32,000 to speak about tanning and partying.

Of course, you also have to include all of the interest payments for the ridiculous student loan money that students in other countries don't have to worry about.
 
2012-10-10 10:01:00 AM

Epoch_Zero: Meanwhile...
[www.onedigitallife.com image 500x326]


slightly off topic but I had to take a good hard look at that to figure out whether it was an actual photo of a collapsed bridge or a screenshot from apple maps.
 
2012-10-10 10:01:02 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: MyRandomName: keylock71: We've got money for weapons and war, but when it comes to infrastructure, education, and helping the average American citizen, well, we've all got to tighten our belts, you see... Not the wealthy, of course, though.

The united states spends more on education than any other country by pupil. Stop this lie that there is no spending on education. The problem is administration has tripled in size sucking money from actual classrooms. Stop this myth of no education spending. It is just silly.

The United States spends more on it's military than the rest of the world COMBINED.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 270x250]


Well yeah but its in USD so we get a better rate. You need to UNSKEWE that
 
2012-10-10 10:01:10 AM

Graffito: GoldSpider: Satanic_Hamster: We hear all the time from the Republicans, right wing shrill pundits, and troll accounts that government spending doesn't create jobs. But cutting military spending causes people to lose jobs. It's almost as if they're full of shiat.

That knife cuts both ways. The other side argues that all government spending creates jobs, except military spending, which should be cut to the bone.

Nobody NOBODY has said that military spending should be cut to the bone. Asshole.


I have
 
2012-10-10 10:01:33 AM

IAMTHEINTARWEBS: Reform to the civil legal system to a looser pays system.


Yes, the payments are rather tight, aren't they?
 
2012-10-10 10:02:18 AM

MyRandomName: keylock71: We've got money for weapons and war, but when it comes to infrastructure, education, and helping the average American citizen, well, we've all got to tighten our belts, you see... Not the wealthy, of course, though.

The united states spends more on education than any other country by pupil. Stop this lie that there is no spending on education. The problem is administration has tripled in size sucking money from actual classrooms. Stop this myth of no education spending. It is just silly.


Education spending: 3%
Military spending: 25%

Do you see some sort of problem when educating our children is 3% of the budget and the military is a full quarter of it?
 
2012-10-10 10:04:40 AM

GoldSpider: Epoch_Zero: Exactly - by pupil. Not by school. There are a few extremely rich schools where they get what they need and the rest, well, they have to get bootstrappy.

Would you support consolidating school districts to the county level (in states where it's not already so) and change the funding mechanism from local property taxes to a county income tax?


No - that wouldn't do anything. That the funding is local is already the problem. Schools should get what they need regardless of what economic area they happen to be located in. Everyone talks about how education is a way out of poverty, yet schools located in poor neighborhoods are at a disadvantage because of it. The school system needs to be nationalized. It would solve a lot of problems.
 
2012-10-10 10:05:29 AM

ox45tallboy: This is the problem with producing too many weapons - someone sees them sitting around, and before you know it, someone thinks its a good idea to sell them. Then, next thing you know, the purchaser uses them, and so the military has to order a new round of weapons to go kill someone else that is using the weapons we sold them in the first place.


You say that like it's a problem.

/General Dynamics
 
2012-10-10 10:06:05 AM

ox45tallboy: Arkanaut: Agreed. We should be focusing on ways to boost the economy so that there is more demand for other high-tech goods that will require skilled engineers to build them.

If there's one thing we do have, it's the demand. We just don't have the manufacturing capabilities anymore.

[blogs-images.forbes.com image 463x378]


Boeing & Lockheed are still here. The car companies are still here. We have lots of engineering schools.

IMO globalization is a red herring -- it's not that difficult* to bring jobs back. We just have to support wages, a la the EITC or other negative taxation schemes. That lowers costs for employers and makes life easier for workers. Of course you'd have to pay for it on the higher end with taxes, but if taxes are on the individual (e.g. the shareholders) and not the corporation then the marginal benefit to the corporation still outweighs the costs.

*not difficult conceptually; politically it would run into the usual opposition to "socialism".
 
2012-10-10 10:06:59 AM

cameroncrazy1984: MyRandomName: keylock71: We've got money for weapons and war, but when it comes to infrastructure, education, and helping the average American citizen, well, we've all got to tighten our belts, you see... Not the wealthy, of course, though.

The united states spends more on education than any other country by pupil. Stop this lie that there is no spending on education. The problem is administration has tripled in size sucking money from actual classrooms. Stop this myth of no education spending. It is just silly.

Education spending: 3%
Military spending: 25%

Do you see some sort of problem when educating our children is 3% of the budget and the military is a full quarter of it?


Bootstraps shouldn't cost as much as tanks
 
2012-10-10 10:07:28 AM
cameroncrazy1984


MyRandomName: Good points but you had to add a single line of derp. Romney said he would let them go bankrupt. Not fail. Guess what? They went bankrupt. Oh noes. Romney would have allowed normal bankruptcy, not the illegal restructured bankruptcy Obama pushed for to reward unions. Ask gm how easy it is to get private loans now that their original creditors were pushed behind unions in bankruptcy.

If it was illegal why isn't Romney suing?

And I like how in one sentence you say they "went bankrupt" just like Romney said they should, and in the next you say it was "illegal restructured bankruptcy"

Get it together man


Seems like you are the one who needs to get it together and maybe do a little research about federal law. It is the creditors that could sue, not Romney and it was illegal. Plaintiff would seek redress in civil court.
 
2012-10-10 10:08:00 AM

Epoch_Zero: GoldSpider: Epoch_Zero: Exactly - by pupil. Not by school. There are a few extremely rich schools where they get what they need and the rest, well, they have to get bootstrappy.

Would you support consolidating school districts to the county level (in states where it's not already so) and change the funding mechanism from local property taxes to a county income tax?

No - that wouldn't do anything. That the funding is local is already the problem. Schools should get what they need regardless of what economic area they happen to be located in. Everyone talks about how education is a way out of poverty, yet schools located in poor neighborhoods are at a disadvantage because of it. The school system needs to be nationalized. It would solve a lot of problems.


I'm not sure if I want Congress setting national education standards.
 
2012-10-10 10:08:01 AM

liam76: Sorry, Ithough you were talking abotu picking up out of no real research to going cutting edge like we did in WWII.

We don't employ those people (on those types of projects) and we lose that experience. however the army is talking about waiting three years, not abandoning tanks so I agree we aren't hurt by waiting this case.


Actually, the tanks that went directly into production weren't some radical redesign. The military uniforms and equipment weren't at all different from what we had already been developing. There wasn't time enough to revamp the training system for new tactics, so we went with what we had.

liam76: Military vehilces use a shiat ton of things that you can't get as commercial off the shelf products.


While this is true, it's also true that they do use a sh*t ton of things that are pretty much off-the shelf products. Like engines. And wheels. And brakes. And tires. And axles. And seats.

liam76: He didn't do it right or make the deadline, Iphone flops or is late. With military equip you have consequences on another level.


Which is why we would invest even more resources into getting it right than Jobs did. The government has far more resources than he did.
 
2012-10-10 10:09:17 AM

Arkanaut: ox45tallboy: Arkanaut: Agreed. We should be focusing on ways to boost the economy so that there is more demand for other high-tech goods that will require skilled engineers to build them.

If there's one thing we do have, it's the demand. We just don't have the manufacturing capabilities anymore.

[blogs-images.forbes.com image 463x378]

Boeing & Lockheed are still here. The car companies are still here. We have lots of engineering schools.

IMO globalization is a red herring -- it's not that difficult* to bring jobs back. We just have to support wages, a la the EITC or other negative taxation schemes. That lowers costs for employers and makes life easier for workers. Of course you'd have to pay for it on the higher end with taxes, but if taxes are on the individual (e.g. the shareholders) and not the corporation then the marginal benefit to the corporation still outweighs the costs.

*not difficult conceptually; politically it would run into the usual opposition to "socialism".


Removing the burden of providing health insurance from businesses would probably go a long way, as well, but we all know that's socialism too.
 
2012-10-10 10:09:44 AM

MyRandomName: Good points but you had to add a single line of derp. Romney said he would let them go bankrupt. Not fail. Guess what? They went bankrupt. Oh noes. Romney would have allowed normal bankruptcy, not the illegal restructured bankruptcy Obama pushed for to reward unions. Ask gm how easy it is to get private loans now that their original creditors were pushed behind unions in bankruptcy.


And how would it be easier for GM to get private loans if they had gone through "normal bankruptcy"?
 
2012-10-10 10:10:22 AM

qorkfiend: Epoch_Zero: GoldSpider: Epoch_Zero: Exactly - by pupil. Not by school. There are a few extremely rich schools where they get what they need and the rest, well, they have to get bootstrappy.

Would you support consolidating school districts to the county level (in states where it's not already so) and change the funding mechanism from local property taxes to a county income tax?

No - that wouldn't do anything. That the funding is local is already the problem. Schools should get what they need regardless of what economic area they happen to be located in. Everyone talks about how education is a way out of poverty, yet schools located in poor neighborhoods are at a disadvantage because of it. The school system needs to be nationalized. It would solve a lot of problems.

I'm not sure if I want Congress setting national education standards.


Sure you do. Who wouldn't want their kids learning about Jesus riding dinosaurs from Bethlehem to Jerusalem?
 
2012-10-10 10:10:29 AM

Epoch_Zero: No - that wouldn't do anything. That the funding is local is already the problem. Schools should get what they need regardless of what economic area they happen to be located in. Everyone talks about how education is a way out of poverty, yet schools located in poor neighborhoods are at a disadvantage because of it. The school system needs to be nationalized. It would solve a lot of problems.


Not a fan of incremental (realistic) improvement, I see.
 
2012-10-10 10:11:41 AM

qorkfiend: Removing the burden of providing health insurance from businesses would probably go a long way, as well, but we all know that's socialism too.


I'm not really sure how they got intermingled, anyhow. What the hell does my employer care about my doctor? Why can't I just buy health insurance from the health insurance company?
 
2012-10-10 10:12:26 AM

serial_crusher: Epoch_Zero: Meanwhile...
[www.onedigitallife.com image 500x326]

slightly off topic but I had to take a good hard look at that to figure out whether it was an actual photo of a collapsed bridge or a screenshot from apple maps.


i2.kym-cdn.com
"Hold on, Dear. Evidently the road turns completely vertical in 30 meters..."
 
2012-10-10 10:12:52 AM

GoldSpider: Epoch_Zero: No - that wouldn't do anything. That the funding is local is already the problem. Schools should get what they need regardless of what economic area they happen to be located in. Everyone talks about how education is a way out of poverty, yet schools located in poor neighborhoods are at a disadvantage because of it. The school system needs to be nationalized. It would solve a lot of problems.

Not a fan of incremental (realistic) improvement, I see.


A massive statewide reorganization of school districts isn't really an incremental improvement, either...
 
2012-10-10 10:13:34 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Is the Congressman form the district Program A is based in more or less powerful than the Congressman for Project B's district?


I'm talking smaller programs - way below Congress' interest. Like the staff of a two-star general deciding which subordinate unit gets an extra $500,000 in Operations & Maintenance to spend at their installation during a fiscal year.

Nobody from Congress would bat an eyelash at a big-screen TV or popcorn machine... that's not a drop in the bucket to them - it's a drop in the ocean. I'm not saying we couldn't (or shouldn't) cut $300,000 each from 10,000 unit-level program managers throughout the DoD. But from Congress' point of view, it should be a lot easier to drop a single $3,000,000,000 acquisition when it doesn't fulfill to our combat commanders' needs, or fit with our current defense posture.

Should.
 
2012-10-10 10:13:50 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: MyRandomName: keylock71: We've got money for weapons and war, but when it comes to infrastructure, education, and helping the average American citizen, well, we've all got to tighten our belts, you see... Not the wealthy, of course, though.

The united states spends more on education than any other country by pupil. Stop this lie that there is no spending on education. The problem is administration has tripled in size sucking money from actual classrooms. Stop this myth of no education spending. It is just silly.

The United States spends more on it's military than the rest of the world COMBINED.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 270x250]


Think of what would happen if we spent more than anyone else in education, or roads and train tracks
 
2012-10-10 10:13:54 AM

Arkanaut: IMO globalization is a red herring -- it's not that difficult* to bring jobs back


Of course not. When you add in the cost of transportation, corporations don't save a huge amount of money by moving manufacturing overseas. If we built more infrastructure around manufacturing, companies could eliminate the management headaches of production facilities being halfway around the world, and create even more demand for their products by making sure more people could afford them.

But when mutual fund managers make that extra .02%, it translates directly into their own pocket, and makes a difference on whether their kid goes to Harvard or State U.

When one or two companies moves their manufacturing overseas, they make pretty well. When everyone does it, the whole system collapses because no one has customers who can afford their products anymore.
 
2012-10-10 10:14:02 AM

ox45tallboy:

Okay, speaking of the Abrams, why did Bush in 2007 approve the sale of 125 M1A1 Abrams tanks to Egypt, a regime that we only three years later supported the overthrow of?

If we are producing so many tanks that we are selling them to other countries, then maybe we're producing too many tanks.


Just an add - its pretty generous to say the US sold those tanks to Egypt. The US gives Egypt a billion dollars or so in 'military aid' that Egypt them uses to 'buy' tanks from the US. We're basically giving away these things.
 
2012-10-10 10:15:47 AM

qorkfiend: A massive statewide reorganization of school districts isn't really an incremental improvement, either...


It's a smaller change than a complete federal takeover, and it's already been done in small states.

Of course, we could just keep doing the same thing and hope it improves on its own.
 
2012-10-10 10:15:52 AM

ox45tallboy: While this is true, it's also true that they do use a sh*t ton of things that are pretty much off-the shelf products. Like engines. And wheels. And brakes. And tires. And axles. And seats.


I work with aircraft.

Tanks might share seats.
 
2012-10-10 10:16:26 AM

GoldSpider: It's a smaller change than a complete federal takeover, and it's already been done in small some states.


FTFM
 
2012-10-10 10:16:58 AM

qorkfiend: Epoch_Zero: GoldSpider: Epoch_Zero: Exactly - by pupil. Not by school. There are a few extremely rich schools where they get what they need and the rest, well, they have to get bootstrappy.

Would you support consolidating school districts to the county level (in states where it's not already so) and change the funding mechanism from local property taxes to a county income tax?

No - that wouldn't do anything. That the funding is local is already the problem. Schools should get what they need regardless of what economic area they happen to be located in. Everyone talks about how education is a way out of poverty, yet schools located in poor neighborhoods are at a disadvantage because of it. The school system needs to be nationalized. It would solve a lot of problems.

I'm not sure if I want Congress setting national education standards.


Any better than Texas setting the national standards for textbooks, mandating that 'distasteful' scientific discoveries be omitted?

GoldSpider: Epoch_Zero: No - that wouldn't do anything. That the funding is local is already the problem. Schools should get what they need regardless of what economic area they happen to be located in. Everyone talks about how education is a way out of poverty, yet schools located in poor neighborhoods are at a disadvantage because of it. The school system needs to be nationalized. It would solve a lot of problems.

Not a fan of incremental (realistic) improvement, I see.


Well, it's inconvenient and requires actual consideration to do, so let's just make insignificant changes every decade or so. Maybe.

Sometimes you have to mercy nuke a system that isn't working and just replace it with something that works.
 
2012-10-10 10:17:11 AM

moothemagiccow: qorkfiend: Removing the burden of providing health insurance from businesses would probably go a long way, as well, but we all know that's socialism too.

I'm not really sure how they got intermingled, anyhow. What the hell does my employer care about my doctor? Why can't I just buy health insurance from the health insurance company?


From what I understand, it's a holdout from back in the day when both medical costs were low and there wasn't much room to increase wages; offering health benefits was an easy way to offer increased compensation without increasing wages. The savvy businessmen also realized that a healthy workforce is more productive, so taking measures to improve worker health was good for business...
 
2012-10-10 10:17:19 AM

qorkfiend: I'm not sure if I want Congress setting national education standards.


You'd rather have this guy?

www.austinchronicle.com
"Somebody's gotta stand up to these experts!"*


*actual quote
 
2012-10-10 10:18:50 AM

NewportBarGuy: And this is why we can't cut the defense budget. We're at war with our own "Representatives."


To be fair they can't see beyond all that money donated to them by the defense/aerospace companies. It isn't just the military either. Space Launch System isn't necessarily the best solution going forward for NASA (Especially since we may only be able to afford to launch it twice or three times a year). Its just the best solution to keep those shuttle manufactures happy. No bidding necessary. That's what annoys me most about our military/space program. They've become a jobs program, damn the consequences of boondoggles like the Osprey or whether it actually benefits our country.
 
2012-10-10 10:19:48 AM

Epoch_Zero: Sometimes you have to mercy nuke a system that isn't working and just replace it with something that works.


We haven't had the political will to do that sort of thing for a VERY long time.
 
2012-10-10 10:19:49 AM

moothemagiccow: I'm not really sure how they got intermingled, anyhow. What the hell does my employer care about my doctor? Why can't I just buy health insurance from the health insurance company?


Back in the day, when corporate loyalty was high and working for the same company your entire life was the norm rather than the exception, someone thought that having healthy workers would be good for the bottom line.
 
2012-10-10 10:20:45 AM

GoldSpider: Epoch_Zero: Sometimes you have to mercy nuke a system that isn't working and just replace it with something that works.

We haven't had the political will to do that sort of thing for a VERY long time.


Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
 
2012-10-10 10:21:03 AM
incendi: TheGogmagog: I also don't want tanks in the hands of local police and sheriff departments.

What the fark does "Free Speech Unit" mean? That thing is an abomination on so many levels.


I posted the wrong one, That one is a Photoshop. The original is still offensive.

s/7373540/79916625#c79916625" target="_blank">imontheinternet: Is that a Cobra logo on the grill?

Yes, well... It's a Blackwater logo here:
sfist.com
 
2012-10-10 10:21:12 AM

Epoch_Zero: Any better than Texas setting the national standards for textbooks, mandating that 'distasteful' scientific discoveries be omitted?


You're seriously conflating the large textbook market of Texas with giving Congress the legal power to set national education standards?
 
2012-10-10 10:22:43 AM

ox45tallboy: qorkfiend: I'm not sure if I want Congress setting national education standards.

You'd rather have this guy?

[www.austinchronicle.com image 450x300]
"Somebody's gotta stand up to these experts!"*

*actual quote


The damage done by whackjobs on the Texas State Board of Education is mostly limited to Texas, so yes, I would prefer limiting the damage to one or two states instead of inflicting it on every state.
 
2012-10-10 10:23:54 AM

ox45tallboy: Arkanaut: IMO globalization is a red herring -- it's not that difficult* to bring jobs back

Of course not. When you add in the cost of transportation, corporations don't save a huge amount of money by moving manufacturing overseas. If we built more infrastructure around manufacturing, companies could eliminate the management headaches of production facilities being halfway around the world, and create even more demand for their products by making sure more people could afford them.

But when mutual fund managers make that extra .02%, it translates directly into their own pocket, and makes a difference on whether their kid goes to Harvard or State U.

When one or two companies moves their manufacturing overseas, they make pretty well. When everyone does it, the whole system collapses because no one has customers who can afford their products anymore.


If you read the rest of my post, what I meant was that if we support worker's wages, particularly at the lower end, we can have the best of both worlds -- the fund managers can get that .02% and we can have workers who can feed their families. I think.
 
2012-10-10 10:24:37 AM

bbfreak: They've become a jobs program


And an incredibly inefficient one at that. We'd seriously be better off canceling a defense acquisition contract and spend the same money on hiring air traffic controllers, VA and CDC doctors and researchers, US Forest Service park rangers, etc. That would put more money directly back into the economy through demand/consumption.

But lots of government jobs are socialism. A handful of private industry jobs wholly dependent upon government contracts are patriotic capitalism.
 
2012-10-10 10:25:38 AM

qorkfiend: The damage done by whackjobs on the Texas State Board of Education is mostly limited to Texas, so yes, I would prefer limiting the damage to one or two states instead of inflicting it on every state.


Actually it isn't limited to Texas. Publishers don't want to make "Texas Only" versions of their text books, so they try to make the general versions fit the rules of Texas and other states as much as we they can. So kids in classes across the nation end up with text books that follow the requirements Texas sets.
 
2012-10-10 10:26:07 AM

Endrick: WAIT, I just got a brilliant idea
[hugereviews.com image 300x225]


They are already ahead of you see above:

Also forgot to add that while the original didn't have Free Speech Unit on it, it was brought to the Occupy Oakland (May 2012).
 
2012-10-10 10:26:47 AM

liam76: Tanks might share seats.


Do you happen to know who makes the gas turbine engine used in the Abrams? Or who makes the diesel option that other countries that are buying the Abrams from us want instead of the 3 gallons per mile (not a typo) gas turbine?

I'll give you a hint: it's not General Dynamics. They buy the engines that are already in production by a couple of major US manufacturers.
 
2012-10-10 10:28:41 AM

Arkanaut: ox45tallboy: Arkanaut: IMO globalization is a red herring -- it's not that difficult* to bring jobs back

Of course not. When you add in the cost of transportation, corporations don't save a huge amount of money by moving manufacturing overseas. If we built more infrastructure around manufacturing, companies could eliminate the management headaches of production facilities being halfway around the world, and create even more demand for their products by making sure more people could afford them.

But when mutual fund managers make that extra .02%, it translates directly into their own pocket, and makes a difference on whether their kid goes to Harvard or State U.

When one or two companies moves their manufacturing overseas, they make pretty well. When everyone does it, the whole system collapses because no one has customers who can afford their products anymore.

If you read the rest of my post, what I meant was that if we support worker's wages, particularly at the lower end, we can have the best of both worlds -- the fund managers can get that .02% and we can have workers who can feed their families. I think.


How would the fund managers get their .02% in this case? They move overseas because lower labor and regulatory compliance costs offset the higher costs of transportation, thus increasing profitability. Moving them back and making them pay their workers more won't help with that.
 
2012-10-10 10:28:48 AM

Epoch_Zero: The school system needs to be nationalized. It would solve a lot of problems.


Something just occurred to me... are you a fan of No Child Left Behind?
 
2012-10-10 10:28:50 AM
Also, we can afford 3 billion a year to keep building tanks but not 3 million a year to keep the Aquarius undersea Lab running. Nice math idiots. Jobs are more important than science though eh?
 
2012-10-10 10:29:35 AM

qorkfiend: The damage done by whackjobs on the Texas State Board of Education is mostly limited to Texas, so yes, I would prefer limiting the damage to one or two states instead of inflicting it on every state.


Bless your heart, you really believe that. Too bad it's not true.
 
2012-10-10 10:30:17 AM

TheGogmagog: Endrick: WAIT, I just got a brilliant idea
[hugereviews.com image 300x225]

They are already ahead of you see above:

Also forgot to add that while the original didn't have Free Speech Unit on it, it was brought to the Occupy Oakland (May 2012).


This cracks me up because I live in Oakland County (MI), so whenever someone says Oakland, I think that instead. And apparently Oakland county also has riot vehicles... to stop the poors from Detroit from coming north. So I've been told.

/Yes sir we do have more than enough asshats here
 
2012-10-10 10:30:33 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: qorkfiend: The damage done by whackjobs on the Texas State Board of Education is mostly limited to Texas, so yes, I would prefer limiting the damage to one or two states instead of inflicting it on every state.

Actually it isn't limited to Texas. Publishers don't want to make "Texas Only" versions of their text books, so they try to make the general versions fit the rules of Texas and other states as much as we they can. So kids in classes across the nation end up with text books that follow the requirements Texas sets.


There are other large, liberal states with sizable textbook markets. Texas isn't the only game in town.
 
2012-10-10 10:30:35 AM

qorkfiend: Epoch_Zero: Any better than Texas setting the national standards for textbooks, mandating that 'distasteful' scientific discoveries be omitted?

You're seriously conflating the large textbook market of Texas with giving Congress the legal power to set national education standards?


If it prevents racists and religious zealots from injecting fascism and outright lies into the textbooks that are used for the national standard, then perhaps it should be looked into. If Homeland Security can be created and instituted in such a short time, having such a demonstrative effect on our lives, perhaps the same method should be used to correct our educational systems.

"Some board members themselves acknowledged this morning that the process for revising curriculum standards in Texas is seriously broken, with politics and personal agendas dominating just about every decision," said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, which advocates for religious freedom.

Republican Terri Leo, a member of the powerful Christian conservative voting bloc, called the standards "world class" and "exceptional."

Board members argued about the classification of historic periods (still B.C. and A.D., rather than B.C.E. and C.E.); whether students should be required to explain the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its impact on global politics (they will); and whether former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir should be required learning (she will).

In addition to learning the Bill of Rights, the board specified a reference to the Second Amendment right to bear arms in a section about citizenship in a U.S. government class.
Conservatives beat back multiple attempts to include hip-hop as an example of a significant cultural movement.

Numerous attempts to add the names or references to important Hispanics throughout history also were denied, inducing one amendment that would specify that Tejanos died at the Alamo alongside Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie. Another amendment deleted a requirement that sociology students "explain how institutional racism is evident in American society."

Democrats did score a victory by deleting a portion of an amendment by Republican Don McLeroy suggesting that the civil rights movement led to "unrealistic expectations for equal outcomes."
 
2012-10-10 10:31:01 AM

Arkanaut: If you read the rest of my post, what I meant was that if we support worker's wages, particularly at the lower end, we can have the best of both worlds -- the fund managers can get that .02% and we can have workers who can feed their families. I think.


That's kind of what I meant, too. The increased profits due to increased sales which come as a result of more people having money to buy the product should make that .02% happen.
 
2012-10-10 10:32:34 AM

ox45tallboy: qorkfiend: The damage done by whackjobs on the Texas State Board of Education is mostly limited to Texas, so yes, I would prefer limiting the damage to one or two states instead of inflicting it on every state.

Bless your heart, you really believe that. Too bad it's not true.


You'll notice I said mostly, not entirely.

You think inflicting the Texas Board of Education on the entire country by Congressional mandate is a good idea. Why?
 
2012-10-10 10:33:54 AM

Epoch_Zero: If it prevents racists and religious zealots from injecting fascism and outright lies into the textbooks that are used for the national standard, then perhaps it should be looked into.


You honestly think giving Congress the power to set national education standards would prevent racists and religious zealots from injecting fascism and outright lies into the national standard? Seriously?
 
2012-10-10 10:35:27 AM

qorkfiend: ox45tallboy: qorkfiend: The damage done by whackjobs on the Texas State Board of Education is mostly limited to Texas, so yes, I would prefer limiting the damage to one or two states instead of inflicting it on every state.

Bless your heart, you really believe that. Too bad it's not true.

You'll notice I said mostly, not entirely.

You think inflicting the Texas Board of Education on the entire country by Congressional mandate is a good idea. Why?


Alright everyone. Let's back off and cool down. We all agree that nothing will work until the fundies are purged. So let's all take a Xanax and put any ideas about nationalized education on the back burner until the Grand Ole Party of Theofascism rights itself... or dies.
 
2012-10-10 10:37:12 AM

cptjeff: ladyfortuna: Tell you what, start selling the oldest ones at auction without the firing parts included. I'll be in the line somewhere to help rid you of the back stock...

There are ways to get surplus tanks.


Oblig:
You want a toe? I can get you a toe, believe me. There are ways, Dude. You don't wanna know about it, believe me. Hell, I can get you a toe by 3 o'clock this afternoon... with nail polish. These farking amateurs...
 
2012-10-10 10:37:55 AM

bbfreak: Also, we can afford 3 billion a year to keep building tanks but not 3 million a year to keep the Aquarius undersea Lab running. Nice math idiots. Jobs are more important than science though eh?


i24.photobucket.com
"They're cutting our funding to build tanks? That's it! I'm declaring Martian law!"
 
2012-10-10 10:38:03 AM
This is the true entitlement program that's killing America.

These contractors feel entitled to our tax money to pay for their pet projects and it's draining out budget.

But yeah, go after PBS. Afterall, they're really the ones bleeding this country fiscally dry.

/rolls eyes
 
2012-10-10 10:39:20 AM

GAT_00: Yeah, but the rest of the world combined can't even field 12 fleet carriers, like we do. I think they can if you include those crappy helicopter carriers that aren't real carriers. Fine, keep 3 for the Arabian Sea, and 3 for China. Who the fark are the rest for? And just cutting those 6 carriers from active deployment can save something like $100 billion a year.


This was actually explained to me - We half half on deployment at any time, and the other half in dock for repair and resupply. You want to have 2 carriers for every deploy point, so there can always be one in the region.
 
2012-10-10 10:41:51 AM

JokerMattly: GAT_00: Yeah, but the rest of the world combined can't even field 12 fleet carriers, like we do. I think they can if you include those crappy helicopter carriers that aren't real carriers. Fine, keep 3 for the Arabian Sea, and 3 for China. Who the fark are the rest for? And just cutting those 6 carriers from active deployment can save something like $100 billion a year.

This was actually explained to me - We half half on deployment at any time, and the other half in dock for repair and resupply. You want to have 2 carriers for every deploy point, so there can always be one in the region.


Why the fark do we need a fleet carrier on deployment in every region 100% of the time? What threat is of such magnitude to require that?
 
2012-10-10 10:42:16 AM

qorkfiend: Epoch_Zero: If it prevents racists and religious zealots from injecting fascism and outright lies into the textbooks that are used for the national standard, then perhaps it should be looked into.

You honestly think giving Congress the power to set national education standards would prevent racists and religious zealots from injecting fascism and outright lies into the national standard? Seriously?


I think giving the Department of Education the power to set national education standards would prevent that more than a set of backwards state representatives from Texas, yes. As of right now the DoE can only "identify issues and focus attention on them", they can't enforce anything other than non-discrimination policies.

Leaving this up to the states is a stupid idea. We need to be a country, already.
 
2012-10-10 10:42:17 AM
Does the Army know something Congress doesn't? That maybe our super duper armor can now be penetrated by a cheap small penetrator, easily disabling a very expensive tank (not to mention killing it's crew)?


I would have linked to the original article in The Army Times but, strangely enough, the article is no longer available. Doo doodly doo doo
 
2012-10-10 10:43:11 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: JokerMattly: GAT_00: Yeah, but the rest of the world combined can't even field 12 fleet carriers, like we do. I think they can if you include those crappy helicopter carriers that aren't real carriers. Fine, keep 3 for the Arabian Sea, and 3 for China. Who the fark are the rest for? And just cutting those 6 carriers from active deployment can save something like $100 billion a year.

This was actually explained to me - We half half on deployment at any time, and the other half in dock for repair and resupply. You want to have 2 carriers for every deploy point, so there can always be one in the region.

Why the fark do we need a fleet carrier on deployment in every region 100% of the time? What threat is of such magnitude to require that?


The threat of not having a fleet carrier on deployment in every region 100% of the time. I get scared just thinking about it.
 
2012-10-10 10:44:13 AM

qorkfiend: You think inflicting the Texas Board of Education on the entire country by Congressional mandate is a good idea. Why?


I neither proposed the idea of full Congressional control nor expressly advocated it. I simply pointed out that it was not worse than the idea of a bunch of religious zealots from Texas having as much control as they do now.

I do believe that national educational standards are not only possible but desirable, as long as the states are allowed some leeway for regional or statehood education. Honestly, the system wouldn't be too different from the standards currently used for the NCLB mandated crap, only it would be actually effective because the same entity would be providing the curriculum to be tested on as well as the test, rather than the clusterf*ck we have now of teachers having to teach to state requirements but being tested on national requirements..
 
2012-10-10 10:45:23 AM

Mrtraveler01: This is the true entitlement program that's killing America.

These contractors feel entitled to our tax money to pay for their pet projects and it's draining out budget.

But yeah, go after PBS. Afterall, they're really the ones bleeding this country fiscally dry.

/rolls eyes


It's really simple, though.

To the dumb pork grind eating dickhead in the South, what's more favorable - protecting us from brown people overseas or Big Bird? Costs don't matter to a guy who can't evaluate the square root of 400.
 
2012-10-10 10:46:10 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: What threat is of such magnitude to require that?


Mooslims that hate us for our freedoms. Duh.
 
2012-10-10 10:48:09 AM

qorkfiend: Arkanaut: ox45tallboy: Arkanaut: IMO globalization is a red herring -- it's not that difficult* to bring jobs back

Of course not. When you add in the cost of transportation, corporations don't save a huge amount of money by moving manufacturing overseas. If we built more infrastructure around manufacturing, companies could eliminate the management headaches of production facilities being halfway around the world, and create even more demand for their products by making sure more people could afford them.

But when mutual fund managers make that extra .02%, it translates directly into their own pocket, and makes a difference on whether their kid goes to Harvard or State U.

When one or two companies moves their manufacturing overseas, they make pretty well. When everyone does it, the whole system collapses because no one has customers who can afford their products anymore.

If you read the rest of my post, what I meant was that if we support worker's wages, particularly at the lower end, we can have the best of both worlds -- the fund managers can get that .02% and we can have workers who can feed their families. I think.

How would the fund managers get their .02% in this case? They move overseas because lower labor and regulatory compliance costs offset the higher costs of transportation, thus increasing profitability. Moving them back and making them pay their workers more won't help with that.


The idea is, negative taxation could make a $15/hr worker cost only $12 to the employer. Then if you factor in the better quality of work, lower cost of transport, shorter lines of communication, and faster time to market, it could very well be worth it to a corporation's bottom line to hire workers in the same market as your customers.

I do agree though that employer-based health insurance is a hindrance -- single-payer or at least a public option would be a huge help.
 
2012-10-10 10:50:23 AM

coeyagi: To the dumb pork grind eating dickhead in the South


Look, there's no need to get personal. I like living in Atlanta, and I just happen to be staying in farktard redneck Alabama at the moment. I'm not too sure what "pork grind" is, but I've probably eaten it at some point in the last two weeks. It's not like I ordered it at a restaurant or anything, it's just my sister serves that sort of thing, so don't hold it against me if I've been polite and eaten it anyways.

And I'm all in favor of Big Bird, and, with deference to Mittens, even if it means we have to borrow money from China to pay for it. Because educating our children is that important.
 
2012-10-10 10:51:19 AM
i449.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-10 10:51:21 AM

liam76: Things have gotten many orders of magnitude more complicated since then.


And the ability to modify production equipment has improved by orders of magnitude since then. Back then if you wanted to go from stamping out airplane parts to stamping out car parts, it was going to take a while. Today? Can do it a lot faster. The machine doing the stamping, then as now, doesn't change you just need a new die. Well back then, it took a while to make one and there was always the chance it wouldn't turn out right. Today? Thanks to computer controlled cutting machines they're made to tolerances that are best understood in terms of the width of a human hair. And it's faster. A lot faster.
 
2012-10-10 10:52:05 AM

Arkanaut: I do agree though that employer-based health insurance is a hindrance -- single-payer or at least a public option would be a huge help.


This is how Japan kicked our collective asses (and continues to do so) in the automobile market. They don't have to factor employee health care costs into the price of an automobile.
 
2012-10-10 10:55:02 AM

WhyteRaven74: liam76: Things have gotten many orders of magnitude more complicated since then.

And the ability to modify production equipment has improved by orders of magnitude since then. Back then if you wanted to go from stamping out airplane parts to stamping out car parts, it was going to take a while. Today? Can do it a lot faster. The machine doing the stamping, then as now, doesn't change you just need a new die. Well back then, it took a while to make one and there was always the chance it wouldn't turn out right. Today? Thanks to computer controlled cutting machines they're made to tolerances that are best understood in terms of the width of a human hair. And it's faster. A lot faster.


My position is that it would take about the same amount of time today to change over our factories to wartime production as it did in the 1940's. Things like complexity of the product are canceled out by complexity and effectiveness of the machinery involved, as well as improved communications and computers to keep track of inventory. Do you think that it could be accomplished as quickly as we did it in the 1940's?
 
2012-10-10 10:55:22 AM

qorkfiend: Epoch_Zero: GoldSpider: Epoch_Zero: Exactly - by pupil. Not by school. There are a few extremely rich schools where they get what they need and the rest, well, they have to get bootstrappy.

Would you support consolidating school districts to the county level (in states where it's not already so) and change the funding mechanism from local property taxes to a county income tax?

No - that wouldn't do anything. That the funding is local is already the problem. Schools should get what they need regardless of what economic area they happen to be located in. Everyone talks about how education is a way out of poverty, yet schools located in poor neighborhoods are at a disadvantage because of it. The school system needs to be nationalized. It would solve a lot of problems.

I'm not sure if I want Congress setting national education standards.


Congress isn't too trustworthy at the moment, but I'll take them over your average school board.
 
2012-10-10 10:57:01 AM

ox45tallboy: coeyagi: To the dumb pork grind eating dickhead in the South

Look, there's no need to get personal. I like living in Atlanta, and I just happen to be staying in farktard redneck Alabama at the moment. I'm not too sure what "pork grind" is, but I've probably eaten it at some point in the last two weeks. It's not like I ordered it at a restaurant or anything, it's just my sister serves that sort of thing, so don't hold it against me if I've been polite and eaten it anyways.

And I'm all in favor of Big Bird, and, with deference to Mittens, even if it means we have to borrow money from China to pay for it. Because educating our children is that important.


I wasn't saying everyone in the South fit into this category, just for those who do...

Also, you would remember a pork rind:

cdn.blisstree.com
 
2012-10-10 10:58:39 AM
You want to build tanks to help local economies? Fine, but you should also stimulate the economy by destroying old ones if you have a surplus. Recycling that steel, plastic, and whatever else can be recycled could be done for no cost to the military. It would create jobs, and generate a little business for someone.
 
2012-10-10 10:59:43 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: JokerMattly: GAT_00: Yeah, but the rest of the world combined can't even field 12 fleet carriers, like we do. I think they can if you include those crappy helicopter carriers that aren't real carriers. Fine, keep 3 for the Arabian Sea, and 3 for China. Who the fark are the rest for? And just cutting those 6 carriers from active deployment can save something like $100 billion a year.

This was actually explained to me - We half half on deployment at any time, and the other half in dock for repair and resupply. You want to have 2 carriers for every deploy point, so there can always be one in the region.

Why the fark do we need a fleet carrier on deployment in every region 100% of the time? What threat is of such magnitude to require that?


We must stand ready in case President Madagascar tries to shut down everything.
 
2012-10-10 10:59:48 AM

ox45tallboy: liam76: Tanks might share seats.

Do you happen to know who makes the gas turbine engine used in the Abrams? Or who makes the diesel option that other countries that are buying the Abrams from us want instead of the 3 gallons per mile (not a typo) gas turbine?

I'll give you a hint: it's not General Dynamics. They buy the engines that are already in production by a couple of major US manufacturers.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell_AGT1500

The Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine engine is the main powerplant of the M1 Abrams series of tanks. The engine was originally designed and produced by the Lycoming Turbine Engine Division in the Stratford Army Engine Plant. In 1995, production was moved to the Anniston Army Depot in Anniston, Alabama after the Stratford Army Engine Plant was shut down.

Not a tank expert, and this is from Wiki, but it doesn't seem to be a commercial engine.
 
2012-10-10 11:00:10 AM

Alphax: Congress isn't too trustworthy at the moment, but I'll take them over your average school board.


No Child Left Behind
 
2012-10-10 11:01:02 AM

imontheinternet: Philip Francis Queeg: JokerMattly: GAT_00: Yeah, but the rest of the world combined can't even field 12 fleet carriers, like we do. I think they can if you include those crappy helicopter carriers that aren't real carriers. Fine, keep 3 for the Arabian Sea, and 3 for China. Who the fark are the rest for? And just cutting those 6 carriers from active deployment can save something like $100 billion a year.

This was actually explained to me - We half half on deployment at any time, and the other half in dock for repair and resupply. You want to have 2 carriers for every deploy point, so there can always be one in the region.

Why the fark do we need a fleet carrier on deployment in every region 100% of the time? What threat is of such magnitude to require that?

We must stand ready in case President Madagascar tries to shut down everything.


i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-10-10 11:02:10 AM
Came here to echo what has been said. The military usually knows what needs to be done and what they need to do it. Especially with armaments. They make a mis-step here and there, like underestimating the need for uparmored Hummers to avoid IED casualties, but on the whole they do it correctly.

The role of the military isn't to provide jobs for equipment that isn't needed. Couldn't those suppliers design and build other things, like kick-ass software and electronics for the auto and trucking industry, or really cool armor for industrial use, such as in dangerous manufacturing zones like steel mills?

Just spit-balling here. Either way, we shouldn't buy things we don't need.
 
2012-10-10 11:02:26 AM

imontheinternet: Philip Francis Queeg: JokerMattly: GAT_00: Yeah, but the rest of the world combined can't even field 12 fleet carriers, like we do. I think they can if you include those crappy helicopter carriers that aren't real carriers. Fine, keep 3 for the Arabian Sea, and 3 for China. Who the fark are the rest for? And just cutting those 6 carriers from active deployment can save something like $100 billion a year.

This was actually explained to me - We half half on deployment at any time, and the other half in dock for repair and resupply. You want to have 2 carriers for every deploy point, so there can always be one in the region.

Why the fark do we need a fleet carrier on deployment in every region 100% of the time? What threat is of such magnitude to require that?

We must stand ready in case President Madagascar tries to shut down everything.


That, and in case we need to coordinate a worldwide alien counteroffensive with the window of only a few hours (in Robert Loggia's voice).
 
2012-10-10 11:02:50 AM

GoldSpider: Alphax: Congress isn't too trustworthy at the moment, but I'll take them over your average school board.

No Child Left Behind


No Child Left Behind indoctrinated millions of this country's youth into believing blatant falsehoods about history and that magic is real? Huh, didn't know that. I just thought it was a poorly planned operation that predictably failed. Who knew?
 
2012-10-10 11:03:58 AM

coeyagi: To the dumb pork grind eating dickhead in the South


coeyagi: Also, you would remember a pork rind:


Yes, due to the "G", I thought you were referring to something else...
 
2012-10-10 11:04:26 AM

NewportBarGuy: AbbeySomeone: Follow the money people.

Personally? I think they care more about losing jobs in their district. They can raise $56k other ways, but they can't fight local paper headline of people getting laid off. I understand why they do it, but it's just another reason we need term limits so people don't make stupid decisions like this just to keep their job.


Term limits won't solve this problem at all. The newbies would be just as easily swayed, if not outright bought, to do the same thing when elected.
 
2012-10-10 11:05:32 AM

Mikey1969: This is just more enforcement of what we are told are "myths" or "urban legrnds", the stories about military units having to use up all of their budget is true, too, although people try and tell us all of the time that it never happens. My bro-in-law recently retired from the Air Force, and had been running his squadron for years. He was constantly trying to figure out what to blow their budget on at the end of the year.

Three examples were a large screen theater system, a popcorn machine and a snow cone machine for the break room. Not because they needed this stuff, but because if he didn't spend it, his budget would get slashed for the next year. He was getting annoyed with having to constantly think of new unnecessary shiat...


I've seen this in action. Fiscal year winding down? Got money left? Let's get a whole break room full of new furniture and maybe replace all of our tools with new Snap-On gear because we have to use up our budget or we'll get less next year.
 
2012-10-10 11:05:37 AM

dittybopper: Funny thing about isolationism: We tried that in the first half of the last century,


BWAHAHAHA

Because nothing says "isolationism" like attempting to intervene diplomatically in the middle of a war, and then attempting to form the League of Nations afterwards.

Because nothing says "isolationism" like enacting the lend-lease and embargoes with opposing sides in an ongoing global conflict.

But yeah, we were totally "dragged" into those wars.
 
2012-10-10 11:05:43 AM

coeyagi:

Also, you would remember a pork rind:

[cdn.blisstree.com image 300x500]


What? No Extra Stubble?
 
2012-10-10 11:07:06 AM

GoldSpider: Alphax: Congress isn't too trustworthy at the moment, but I'll take them over your average school board.

No Child Left Behind


No military manufacturer left behind will be the next initiative.
 
2012-10-10 11:07:07 AM

Epoch_Zero: No Child Left Behind indoctrinated millions of this country's youth into believing blatant falsehoods about history and that magic is real? Huh, didn't know that. I just thought it was a poorly planned operation that predictably failed. Who knew?


NCLB has been a disaster, and should serve as a warning against broad and rigid national education policy.
 
2012-10-10 11:10:11 AM
Actually, you need 3 carriers for each one you want in an active deployment zone. That's one on deployment, one in port refitting, and one working up getting ready for deployment or returning home from deployment. You can get two on station by delaying the return of the carrier scheduled to come home, but that wears out both the ships and the crew.

As for tanks, they aren't exactly disposable hardware. Put them in a humidity-free area like the SW desert, and they just sit there until you need them again. Congress just wants the tank factory kept going to provide jobs for their voters.

/you know who else had factories making pointless items?
//that's right, the Soviet Union!
 
2012-10-10 11:13:26 AM

liam76: Not a tank expert, and this is from Wiki, but it doesn't seem to be a commercial engine.


That's the M1A1. I mean currently.

Link

"The decision to buy a turbine engine tank was a political decision. The Army had intended to select the GM version, which had a diesel engine. However, at the eleventh hour, The DepSecDef apparently ordered the Sec Army to reverse the decision and select the Chrysler version, which had the gas turbine engine."

-B. G. Steve Bliss, USA, Ret.

For the record, Chrysler did later sell off it's tank division which produced the gas turbine engine. But my point still stands - the Abrams doesn't use some hand-made specialty engine with individually crafted parts made by Christian Science monks under a vow of silence in a secret lair in the foothills of South Dakota. It's a production-line engine, or as you referred to it, "off-the-shelf".
 
2012-10-10 11:15:38 AM

GoldSpider: Epoch_Zero: No Child Left Behind indoctrinated millions of this country's youth into believing blatant falsehoods about history and that magic is real? Huh, didn't know that. I just thought it was a poorly planned operation that predictably failed. Who knew?

NCLB has been a disaster, and should serve as a warning against broad and rigid national education policy.


Having a national standard isn't a bad idea. Their slavish devotion to testing was the problem. Not sure that's worse than states pushing for biblical math and creation science as valid curriculum.
 
2012-10-10 11:19:35 AM

ox45tallboy: Arkanaut: I do agree though that employer-based health insurance is a hindrance -- single-payer or at least a public option would be a huge help.

This is how Japan kicked our collective asses (and continues to do so) in the automobile market. They don't have to factor employee health care costs into the price of an automobile.


Holy crap, you CAN say something factually correct!
 
2012-10-10 11:22:55 AM

ghare: Holy crap, you CAN say something factually correct!


Please point out something I have said that is not.
 
2012-10-10 11:23:06 AM

cptjeff: ladyfortuna: Tell you what, start selling the oldest ones at auction without the firing parts included. I'll be in the line somewhere to help rid you of the back stock...

There are ways to get surplus tanks.

Here, for example. I'm sure shipping to the US could be arranged.


My wife's birthday is coming up, she's gonna be so excited!
 
2012-10-10 11:23:41 AM
Clearly there's no ideological opposition to spending taxpayer money to put people to work building stuff. It's just not okay for it to be even slightly useful stuff that might compete even slightly with anything in the private sector.
 
2012-10-10 11:28:44 AM

Nem Wan: Clearly there's no ideological opposition to spending taxpayer money to put people to work building stuff. It's just not okay for it to be even slightly useful stuff that might compete even slightly with anything in the private sector.


There shouldn't be any profit motive in infrastructure. I don't like the idea of paying a toll every time I pull out of the driveway. Therefore, some things need to be done even if they are not profitable. This is where government should be doing the work.

Put these defense contractors to work on police and civilian government vehicles instead of tanks. If we need the tanks, then they can convert their factories back over, and have employees already trained in the use of the equipment. It's just stupid to keep producing all of these tanks we don't want or need and can't afford the upkeep for.
 
2012-10-10 11:33:08 AM

ox45tallboy: . Do you think that it could be accomplished as quickly as we did it in the 1940's?


If the right people are in place at a given factory, easily.
 
2012-10-10 11:33:11 AM

AbbeySomeone: NewportBarGuy: And this is why we can't cut the defense budget. We're at war with our own "Representatives."

I don't know how you keep them idle for three years, but find something. Figure it out. There is no sense buying sh*t just to park it in a motor pool and never use it. We're moving away from large-scale armor engagements, so there is really no need going nuts on armor.

McKeon said he's thinking about the long range view. "... If someone could guarantee us that we'll never need tanks in the future, that would be good. I don't see that guarantee."

More than what we have and can refurbish? Uhhh... I can guarantee you that for a while. Go to Aberdeen Proving Grounds or any of the other storage sites for armor we can just refurbish and put into action. We have the tools. Take the $3,000,000,000 and use it elsewhere. Don't worry... I'm sure the Army will ask for it for something else sooner than you can imagine.

McKeon was also unaware that the tank makers had made a hefty contribution to his campaign. Follow the money people. F*ck the taxpayers, we want kickbacks.


Buck McKeon has a reputation for this exact thing. He was the one who pushed for bringing the SR-71 out of retirement because Lockheed begged him to, so they could make a killing on selling parts to the USAF. The USAF was saying "how bout no? These planes are old, outdated, and we can get better results from our satellites".

The result was the USAF had to dig out a bunch of planes built in the 1950s, repair them, and then not use them.
 
2012-10-10 11:38:30 AM
fta: "The fact that the military is having such a hard time getting this relatively small amount of money to be saved, I think is an indication of the huge uphill fight that the military faces when it comes to Congress," Sharp said. "Congress is going to fight tooth and nail to protect defense investments ..."

It's almost as though, by contrast to our corporate defense industry, the military has become the peace branch of American society which leads me, at times, to suspect American society is doomed.
 
2012-10-10 11:39:38 AM
We're moving away from large-scale armor engagements, so there is really no need going nuts on armor.


Don't worry, President Romney won't let those tanks and the production lines go idle.
 
2012-10-10 11:43:15 AM

sunlion: Don't worry, President Romney won't let those tanks and the production lines go idle.

Someone

has to go fight Iran, since we deposed their greatest enemy.
 
2012-10-10 11:44:41 AM

ox45tallboy: sunlion: Don't worry, President Romney won't let those tanks and the production lines go idle.

Someone has to go fight Iran, since we deposed their greatest enemy.


Yeah, but we're propping up their next greatest enemy. Why can't we just deploy Operation Jew Shield?
 
2012-10-10 11:47:02 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Somehow this will end with the tanks being sold to suburban police departments.


CRUSH & FRISK!
 
2012-10-10 11:47:14 AM

coeyagi: Why can't we just deploy Operation Jew Shield?


Thing is, the only thing Iran has to fight about Israel with is the way they're treating the Palestinians.
 
2012-10-10 11:49:00 AM

ox45tallboy: Thing is, the only thing Iran has to fight about Israel with is the way they're treating the Palestinians.


Well, that, and Israel's right to exist as an independent state.
 
2012-10-10 11:49:35 AM

ox45tallboy: coeyagi: Why can't we just deploy Operation Jew Shield?

Thing is, the only thing Iran has to fight about Israel with is the way they're treating the Palestinians.


Well, it seems to be a big enough thorn in Mahmoud Ahmedinajadibadnotgonnaacknowledgeholocaustijan's side that he mentions Israel constantly and how the zionist state must fail, etc, etc.

Sigh. Nuke the Middle East from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. -Hicks.
 
2012-10-10 11:50:04 AM

strapp3r: HotWingConspiracy: Somehow this will end with the tanks being sold to suburban police departments.

CRUSH & FRISK!


www.primolo.de
 
2012-10-10 11:51:42 AM

GoldSpider: Well, that, and Israel's right to exist as an independent state.


That's all political bullsh*t speech. The average Iranian doesn't give two sh*ts about Israel existing, but they do sympathize with fellow Muslims being treated the way Israel treats the Palestinians.
 
2012-10-10 11:51:52 AM

coeyagi: ox45tallboy: coeyagi: Why can't we just deploy Operation Jew Shield?

Thing is, the only thing Iran has to fight about Israel with is the way they're treating the Palestinians.

Well, it seems to be a big enough thorn in Mahmoud Ahmedinajadibadnotgonnaacknowledgeholocaustijan's side that he mentions Israel constantly and how the zionist state must fail, etc, etc.

Sigh. Nuke the Middle East from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. -Hicks.


And all Bibi talks about is that imminent need for the US to turn Iran into a smoking crater.
 
2012-10-10 11:52:07 AM

strapp3r: HotWingConspiracy: Somehow this will end with the tanks being sold to suburban police departments.

CRUSH & FRISK!


all the contraband just squirts out the sides
 
2012-10-10 11:54:51 AM

coeyagi: Well, it seems to be a big enough thorn in Mahmoud Ahmedinajadibadnotgonnaacknowledgeholocaustijan's side that he mentions Israel constantly and how the zionist state must fail, etc, etc.


He's a politician. He's using political rhetoric. While I'm sure there are Iranian people that feel that way, they're not the majority. Do you really think most Iranians would sign up with the military to go invade Israel if the Israelis were just a little bit nicer to the Palestinians? I don't believe most would sign up right now, even with the way the Palestinians are currently treated.
 
2012-10-10 11:55:19 AM
Ditch diggers? National broadband, or national smartgrids? Green energy? Roads? Working sewers or drinking water pipelines? COMMIEFASCOSOCIALISMKENYANISMDOESNTWORK.

A few thousand seven-figure pieces of military hardware sitting in mothballs? REAL AMERICA.

Goddamn, I hate these assholes on Capitol Hill. Anything to keep the pork flowing, as long as it's your pork.
 
2012-10-10 11:56:28 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: coeyagi: ox45tallboy: coeyagi: Why can't we just deploy Operation Jew Shield?

Thing is, the only thing Iran has to fight about Israel with is the way they're treating the Palestinians.

Well, it seems to be a big enough thorn in Mahmoud Ahmedinajadibadnotgonnaacknowledgeholocaustijan's side that he mentions Israel constantly and how the zionist state must fail, etc, etc.

Sigh. Nuke the Middle East from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. -Hicks.

And all Bibi talks about is that imminent need for the US to turn Iran into a smoking crater.


Stop them from developing nukes = smoking crator?

I am continually impressed with Queeg's Israel filter.
 
2012-10-10 11:56:58 AM

GoldSpider: It's like keeping buggy-whip factories open, because someday we might have to go back to horse-and-buggy, and BECAUSE JOBS!!


Well you never know, we do have TV shows predicting it, so, we'd better keep making them to be sure.... 

scifiward.com
 
2012-10-10 11:57:24 AM

GoldSpider: Well, that, and Israel's right to exist as an independent apartheid state.


Ahem.
 
2012-10-10 11:57:44 AM

ox45tallboy: coeyagi: Well, it seems to be a big enough thorn in Mahmoud Ahmedinajadibadnotgonnaacknowledgeholocaustijan's side that he mentions Israel constantly and how the zionist state must fail, etc, etc.

He's a politician. He's using political rhetoric. While I'm sure there are Iranian people that feel that way, they're not the majority. Do you really think most Iranians would sign up with the military to go invade Israel if the Israelis were just a little bit nicer to the Palestinians? I don't believe most would sign up right now, even with the way the Palestinians are currently treated.


Depends on how much their "fearless leader" lies to them. It seemed to work for us around 2003.
 
2012-10-10 11:59:30 AM

GoldSpider: ox45tallboy: Thing is, the only thing Iran has to fight about Israel with is the way they're treating the Palestinians.

Well, that, and Israel's right to exist as an independent state.


And Israeli plans to tear down the Al Aqsa mosque--the third holiest site in Islam--and rebuild the Temple
 
2012-10-10 11:59:54 AM

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: coeyagi: ox45tallboy: coeyagi: Why can't we just deploy Operation Jew Shield?

Thing is, the only thing Iran has to fight about Israel with is the way they're treating the Palestinians.

Well, it seems to be a big enough thorn in Mahmoud Ahmedinajadibadnotgonnaacknowledgeholocaustijan's side that he mentions Israel constantly and how the zionist state must fail, etc, etc.

Sigh. Nuke the Middle East from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. -Hicks.

And all Bibi talks about is that imminent need for the US to turn Iran into a smoking crater.

Stop them from developing nukes = smoking crator?

I am continually impressed with Queeg's Israel filter.


You are right. He's suggesting that we stop them from developing nukes by airlifting in flowers and puppies rather than a massive and prolonged bombing campaign with probable ground invasion.
 
2012-10-10 12:02:00 PM
Screw this noise- where are my spider-walking mecha tanks and tachikomas?
 
2012-10-10 12:07:45 PM

coeyagi: Depends on how much their "fearless leader" lies to them. It seemed to work for us around 2003.


Oh, I'm sure a 9/11-level attack on their country would motivate their people just as much as it did the US, and he's skilled enough as a politician to get the people to back the invasion of some country other than the one that actually attacked them, but that's what it would take - a 9/11-level act of terrorism.

And they're probably not as inept as we were at preventing that sort of thing.

btw, it's not like he actually makes any of the real decisions, but he is instrumental in selling the policies of the Assembly of Experts to the people. He's a (relatively) charismatic figurehead that other countries can mock to their hearts' content, and that the Supreme Leader can replace whenever politically convenient, such as when the people rebel against a nasty action. The best part is that the President is elected by the people, so they think they have some form of control over their government.
 
2012-10-10 12:12:57 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: coeyagi: ox45tallboy: coeyagi: Why can't we just deploy Operation Jew Shield?

Thing is, the only thing Iran has to fight about Israel with is the way they're treating the Palestinians.

Well, it seems to be a big enough thorn in Mahmoud Ahmedinajadibadnotgonnaacknowledgeholocaustijan's side that he mentions Israel constantly and how the zionist state must fail, etc, etc.

Sigh. Nuke the Middle East from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. -Hicks.

And all Bibi talks about is that imminent need for the US to turn Iran into a smoking crater.

Stop them from developing nukes = smoking crator?

I am continually impressed with Queeg's Israel filter.

You are right. He's suggesting that we stop them from developing nukes by airlifting in flowers and puppies rather than a massive and prolonged bombing campaign with probable ground invasion.




How much would it cost the world to just move Israel to Arizona? I bet it would be cheaper in the long run, enable Israel's society to flourish, let the middle-east eat itself without a common enemy, and make life a lot simpler for their residents.

They could be completely autonomous and protected by America super-easily.

/They need to get over the whole "sacred land" thing. That goes for the Islamians and Christians, too.
 
2012-10-10 12:14:41 PM

fickenchucker: How much would it cost the world to just move Israel to Arizona? I bet it would be cheaper in the long run, enable Israel's society to flourish, let the middle-east eat itself without a common enemy, and make life a lot simpler for their residents.

They could be completely autonomous and protected by America super-easily.

/They need to get over the whole "sacred land" thing. That goes for the Islamians and Christians, too.


Bonus: They get Sheriff Joe to complain about.
 
2012-10-10 12:16:37 PM

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: coeyagi: ox45tallboy: coeyagi: Why can't we just deploy Operation Jew Shield?

Thing is, the only thing Iran has to fight about Israel with is the way they're treating the Palestinians.

Well, it seems to be a big enough thorn in Mahmoud Ahmedinajadibadnotgonnaacknowledgeholocaustijan's side that he mentions Israel constantly and how the zionist state must fail, etc, etc.

Sigh. Nuke the Middle East from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. -Hicks.

And all Bibi talks about is that imminent need for the US to turn Iran into a smoking crater.

Stop them from developing nukes = smoking crator?

I am continually impressed with Queeg's Israel filter.


Saying that the PM of Israel wants to start a war with Iran, when he has repeatedly and emphatically confirmed that fact publicly, is not the same as hating all of Israel or being anti-semitic.

Americans need to learn to talk like grownups when we discuss the Middle East in general and Israel in particular.
 
2012-10-10 12:18:39 PM

imontheinternet: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: coeyagi: ox45tallboy: coeyagi: Why can't we just deploy Operation Jew Shield?

Thing is, the only thing Iran has to fight about Israel with is the way they're treating the Palestinians.

Well, it seems to be a big enough thorn in Mahmoud Ahmedinajadibadnotgonnaacknowledgeholocaustijan's side that he mentions Israel constantly and how the zionist state must fail, etc, etc.

Sigh. Nuke the Middle East from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. -Hicks.

And all Bibi talks about is that imminent need for the US to turn Iran into a smoking crater.

Stop them from developing nukes = smoking crator?

I am continually impressed with Queeg's Israel filter.

Saying that the PM of Israel wants to start a war with Iran, when he has repeatedly and emphatically confirmed that fact publicly, is not the same as hating all of Israel or being anti-semitic.

Americans need to learn to talk like grownups when we discuss the Middle East in general and Israel in particular.


Name calling is far more easier than discussing. Putz.

/I mean that in the nicest way possible.
 
2012-10-10 12:23:32 PM
Congress-people are like crack-whores.


Contractors the dealers...
 
2012-10-10 12:29:27 PM
This is what they mean by "fiscally responsible small government." Trust them at your peril.
 
2012-10-10 01:03:33 PM
Happens all the time. DOD projects pushed by interested Reps and Sens are the bane of the budget.

But go ahead and cut BigBird. That'll help.
 
2012-10-10 01:08:11 PM
Fiscal Conservatism in action.

Hypnozombie
 
2012-10-10 01:14:56 PM

ox45tallboy: WhyteRaven74: liam76: Things have gotten many orders of magnitude more complicated since then.

And the ability to modify production equipment has improved by orders of magnitude since then. Back then if you wanted to go from stamping out airplane parts to stamping out car parts, it was going to take a while. Today? Can do it a lot faster. The machine doing the stamping, then as now, doesn't change you just need a new die. Well back then, it took a while to make one and there was always the chance it wouldn't turn out right. Today? Thanks to computer controlled cutting machines they're made to tolerances that are best understood in terms of the width of a human hair. And it's faster. A lot faster.

My position is that it would take about the same amount of time today to change over our factories to wartime production as it did in the 1940's. Things like complexity of the product are canceled out by complexity and effectiveness of the machinery involved, as well as improved communications and computers to keep track of inventory. Do you think that it could be accomplished as quickly as we did it in the 1940's?


No... unless you would like to fight on equal footing with any other competing country...
 
2012-10-10 01:27:14 PM

dittybopper: James F. Campbell: Or maybe it would be more cost-effective to not start pointless farkin' wars.

Funny thing about isolationism: We tried that in the first half of the last century, and we still ended up getting dragged into a couple of world wars, and we were unprepared for both. Luckily, we could ramp up production fairly quickly, but since weapons systems have become more complex with a longer lead time, you don't really have that luxury anymore.


Does isolationism require blindness? We could have seen both wars coming. The unpreparedness part was just farking stupidity, not an inherent trait of leaving people alone.

/Also, 'pre-emptive war'? Is not in any way a requirement of not being isolationists. That was just bullshiat.
 
2012-10-10 01:53:53 PM
Can I have one?
I mean, if I paid for it and it's just sitting there ....

Pretty puh-leaseeeeee!? *puppy dog eyes*
 
2012-10-10 01:56:37 PM

GAT_00: And Republicans tell us we can't cut defense spending.

We waste money on F-22s, when the type of air to air combat they were designed for never actually happens - standoff anti-air missions - and they are worse than any existing plane for any other role. We waste money on main battle tanks, when open tank battles are a thing of the past. We waste money on decades old ICBMs that just sit rotting in their silos. We waste money maintaining an active fleet of aircraft carriers larger than the entire rest of the world combined for absolutely no reason. We waste money maintaining bases around the world defending absolutely nothing. We waste money on "research" into new designs that are unlikely to work and are still designed to win the last war.

And yet we can't cut defense spending, the single greatest example of wasteful government spending with no return on investment.


Clearly, the answer is to cut food stamps and defund PBS.
 
2012-10-10 02:53:21 PM
 
2012-10-10 03:05:09 PM
Corporate welfare is completely acceptable to republicans for some reason.
 
2012-10-10 03:13:07 PM
MyRandumbName: Good points but you had to add a single line of derp. Romney said he would let them go bankrupt. Not fail. Guess what? They went bankrupt. Oh noes. Romney would have allowed normal bankruptcy, blat blat blaaat.

I'll just leave this here. 

/guaranteed never to RickRoll ya ;3
 
2012-10-10 03:24:41 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: You are right. He's suggesting that we stop them from developing nukes by airlifting in flowers and puppies rather than a massive and prolonged bombing campaign with probable ground invasion


Want to point me to where he said that?

If that is his plan why would anyone need to folow up with a ground invasion?

imontheinternet: Saying that the PM of Israel wants to start a war with Iran, when he has repeatedly and emphatically confirmed that fact publicly, is not the same as hating all of Israel or being anti-semitic.

Americans need to learn to talk like grownups when we discuss the Middle East in general and Israel in particular.


When did he say he wants to start a war?

Queeg has a long history of double standards towards Israel.
 
2012-10-10 03:26:31 PM

liam76:
imontheinternet: Saying that the PM of Israel wants to start a war with Iran, when he has repeatedly and emphatically confirmed that fact publicly, is not the same as hating all of Israel or being anti-semitic.

Americans need to learn to talk like grownups when we discuss the Middle East in general and Israel in particular.

When did he say he wants to start a war?

Queeg has a long history of double standards towards Israel.


And starting a war in order to stop someone from getting nukes still doesn't equal what he said "turn Iran into a smoking crater"
 
2012-10-10 03:33:47 PM

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: You are right. He's suggesting that we stop them from developing nukes by airlifting in flowers and puppies rather than a massive and prolonged bombing campaign with probable ground invasion

Want to point me to where he said that?

If that is his plan why would anyone need to folow up with a ground invasion?


That's what would be required to militarily stop Iran form getting a nuclear weapon.

Are you under the illusion that it can be done quickly and cheaply?

Iran's nuclear facilities are spread over a wide geographic area. Air strikes to disable the Iranian air defense system, including radar sites, anti-aircraft emplacements, airfields, command and control centers, communications facilities and the power grid would be required to support the strikes on the nuclear facilities themselves. Even massive air strikes will not guarantee that weapons development has been stopped. Only physical occupation of the facilities will do that.

And that's without considering what might have to be done to counter Iranian military actions in the Persian gulf or against US or allied forces based in the region.
 
2012-10-10 03:45:19 PM
Now you're screwing with someone's pork. Time for a war on the Army.
 
2012-10-10 05:32:18 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: You are right. He's suggesting that we stop them from developing nukes by airlifting in flowers and puppies rather than a massive and prolonged bombing campaign with probable ground invasion

Want to point me to where he said that?

If that is his plan why would anyone need to follow up with a ground invasion?

That's what would be required to militarily stop Iran form getting a nuclear weapon.


So, you went from "imminent need for the US to turn Iran into a smoking crater" to "massive and prolonged bombing campaign with probable ground invasion" and glossed over the fact that his latest speech wasn't a call for actual bombing but a call for a "red line" to be drawn (and you have failed to link anything with him saying we must bomb Iran).

Link


Philip Francis Queeg: Are you under the illusion that it can be done quickly and cheaply?


Are you under the illusion that cost and time = smoking crater?


Philip Francis Queeg: Iran's nuclear facilities are spread over a wide geographic area. Air strikes to disable the Iranian air defense system, including radar sites, anti-aircraft emplacements, airfields, command and control centers, communications facilities and the power grid would be required to support the strikes on the nuclear facilities themselves. Even massive air strikes will not guarantee that weapons development has been stopped.


FTFY. Even if you were right, and even if we ignore the fact that Bibi has not said he wants to bomb them regardless of their nuclear program, that still won't make the country a "smoking crater".


Philip Francis Queeg: Even massive air strikes will not guarantee that weapons development has been stopped. Only physical occupation of the facilities will do that.


If I destroy a facility I don't need to occupy it to make sure it isn't being used.
 
2012-10-10 05:46:43 PM

SnakeLee: BolloxReader: I hate to be on the same side as a Congresscritter, but for reasons that have nothing to do with campaign contributions I have to say that I would rather keep a tank factory on life support with a minimum amount of work with no real need for the tanks, than to shut it down.

We shut down a tank factory, it ain't reopening. Those workers will be gone by the time they are really needed and the equipment will most likely have been scrapped by the defense contractor.

It would be really great if the army had a rebuttal to that point in the article. The whole thing seems to boil down to gambling on whether or not we will be in a large scale tank war sometime in the next 25 years. I am guessing no. In fact, it sort of seems like the WWI moment of charging a tank with calvary because it is all you know.


We will not. Anybody we fight in the next 25 years, we won't be having a large-scale armor war with, because anybody we fight in the next 25 years either can't meet us head to head with that kind of armor (i.e. an insurgent force) or, if they can (Iran, N. Korea), we wouldn't face them in that kind of ground war, we'd hammer them from the sky with our known superior air power. The days of a Kursk Salient style tank battle died that day in Kursk when it became apparent such a battle was too costly to fight.

Do we still need tanks? Yes, absolutely. What we don't need are tanks to occupy Europe with again, because we're not going to be fighting our way across the USSR with them.
 
2012-10-10 05:56:20 PM

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: You are right. He's suggesting that we stop them from developing nukes by airlifting in flowers and puppies rather than a massive and prolonged bombing campaign with probable ground invasion

Want to point me to where he said that?

If that is his plan why would anyone need to follow up with a ground invasion?

That's what would be required to militarily stop Iran form getting a nuclear weapon.

So, you went from "imminent need for the US to turn Iran into a smoking crater" to "massive and prolonged bombing campaign with probable ground invasion" and glossed over the fact that his latest speech wasn't a call for actual bombing but a call for a "red line" to be drawn (and you have failed to link anything with him saying we must bomb Iran).

Link


Philip Francis Queeg: Are you under the illusion that it can be done quickly and cheaply?

Are you under the illusion that cost and time = smoking crater?


Philip Francis Queeg: Iran's nuclear facilities are spread over a wide geographic area. Air strikes to disable the Iranian air defense system, including radar sites, anti-aircraft emplacements, airfields, command and control centers, communications facilities and the power grid would be required to support the strikes on the nuclear facilities themselves. Even massive air strikes will not guarantee that weapons development has been stopped.

FTFY. Even if you were right, and even if we ignore the fact that Bibi has not said he wants to bomb them regardless of their nuclear program, that still won't make the country a "smoking crater".


Philip Francis Queeg: Even massive air strikes will not guarantee that weapons development has been stopped. Only physical occupation of the facilities will do that.

If I destroy a facility I don't need to occupy it to make sure it isn't being used.


Rogers said that Netanyahu does not believe President Obama would attack to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and that the Israeli leader was frustrated that the United States has not set out clear "red lines" that would trigger a U.S. attack.

So your point is that the term "smoking crater" isn't an appropriate description of the effects of a massive and widespread bombing campaign? Seriously?

As for your other corrections once again your deep well of ignorance is on display again. Iranian airfields would be among the primary target of the first wave of strikes. We would seek complete air superiority. We would not simply let the Iranian air forces take off and land at will. We would eliminate their aerial capability as quickly as we could to protect the later waves of bombers. This has been the US strategy each time we have struck Iraq. I mean even one as ignorant as you cannot believe that the US would leave Iranian airfields intact during a bombing campaign.

US strategy has also included attacks to disrupt the power grid. Read up on the BLU-114/B and it's uses.

A military attack on Iran to eliminate their nuclear program would leave widespread and long lasting damage through a vast area of country. Look at the condition that Iraq was left in after the first gulf war. Smoking crater is not much of an exaggeration.
 
2012-10-10 06:32:18 PM

cptjeff: ladyfortuna: Tell you what, start selling the oldest ones at auction without the firing parts included. I'll be in the line somewhere to help rid you of the back stock...

There are ways to get surplus tanks.


with

nail polish.

Bunch of farkin' amateurs.
 
2012-10-10 06:48:32 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: So your point is that the term "smoking crater" isn't an appropriate description of the effects of a massive and widespread bombing campaign? Seriously?


Going to play stupid and dishonest again? Seriously?

That was one of my points. I made them pretty clear above. I will go ahead and repeat them with new words you might understand (and go ahead and repeat from the link you quoted where you ignored them)

1 - It wouldn't take a "widespread bombing campaign". Striking military targets and nuclear sites isn't a "widespread bombing campaign", and that is very far from your original claim of making the country a smoking crater.

FTFY

2 - Bib doesn't want to bomb them today, he wants support for it if they cross a "Red line" (your own post mentions anger over not setting red lines, not over not bombing, nor does it show any desire to bomb them today, so your claim about his stance for even wanting to bomb them is just as dishonest as all your other comments on Israel)

his latest speech wasn't a call for actual bombing but a call for a "red line" to be drawn:



3 - They in no way call for putting troops on the ground.

If I destroy a facility I don't need to occupy it to make sure it isn't being used :


4 - I never said anything about cost or time, just commented on the smoking crater comment, so you pulling out that comment was dishonest as always.

Are you under the illusion that cost and time = smoking crater?:

Philip Francis Queeg:
Iranian airfields would be among the primary target of the first wave of strikes.


Military airfields. We aren't going to have to bomb all airfields as your post indicated.

Philip Francis Queeg: US strategy has also included attacks to disrupt the power grid. Read up on the BLU-114/B and it's uses.


So since US strategy has at some point included power infrastructure it must be included in every future campaign?

Philip Francis Queeg: A military attack on Iran to eliminate their nuclear program would leave widespread and long lasting damage through a vast area of country. Look at the condition that Iraq was left in after the first gulf war. Smoking crater is not much of an exaggeration


1 - Iraq wasn't a "smoking crater" after the first gulf war.

2 - We weren't going in to try and take out a few select sites, we were trying to wipe out an army. The question, as always with you on the topic of Israel is are you being too dishonest or obtuse to see the difference?
 
2012-10-10 08:29:21 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Iran's nuclear facilities are spread over a wide geographic area. Air strikes to disable the Iranian air defense system, including radar sites, anti-aircraft emplacements, airfields, command and control centers, communications facilities and the power grid would be required to support the strikes on the nuclear facilities themselves. Even massive air strikes will not guarantee that weapons development has been stopped. Only physical occupation of the facilities will do that.


To occupy, long-term, a developed nation of 74 million people with high technology would probably require a conscripted army at least ten million strong. It's nothing less than jerkoff material for rightwingers.
 
2012-10-11 01:50:06 AM

Endrick: WAIT, I just got a brilliant idea
[hugereviews.com image 300x225]


Throw in the catgirls and I'm there.
 
2012-10-11 01:54:44 AM

moothemagiccow: NewportBarGuy: We have plenty for the next few wars

The fact that people think like this is what's wrong with this country. How about we not have any wars?


How about we perform brain surgery on everyone at birth so that they never even think about war?

As long as there is land, resources, religion or ego there will be wars. That is one of the hallmarks of or species.
Those wars will become even more frequent in the future as resources become more scarce, and those that have will do all they can to keep it from those that have not.
 
2012-10-11 01:56:08 AM
That is one of the hallmarks of our species.

/FTFM
 
2012-10-11 06:29:18 AM

sunlion: Philip Francis Queeg: Iran's nuclear facilities are spread over a wide geographic area. Air strikes to disable the Iranian air defense system, including radar sites, anti-aircraft emplacements, airfields, command and control centers, communications facilities and the power grid would be required to support the strikes on the nuclear facilities themselves. Even massive air strikes will not guarantee that weapons development has been stopped. Only physical occupation of the facilities will do that.

To occupy, long-term, a developed nation of 74 million people with high technology would probably require a conscripted army at least ten million strong. It's nothing less than jerkoff material for rightwingers.


I agree with that completely. My problem is that the desire to occupy is pulled right out of Queeg's ass, not bibi's mouth.
 
2012-10-11 11:42:02 AM

liam76: 2 - Bib doesn't want to bomb them today, he wants support for it if they cross a "Red line" (your own post mentions anger over not setting red lines, not over not bombing, nor does it show any desire to bomb them today, so your claim about his stance for even wanting to bomb them is just as dishonest as all your other comments on Israel)


Yeah that whole "Triggering a US attack" part was in reference to the flower and puppy airlift., not bombing., Right.

Netanyahu 'determined to attack Iran' before US elections, claims Israel's Channel 10


liam76: Military airfields. We aren't going to have to bomb all airfields as your post indicated.


I keep forgetting how profoundly ignorant you are and then your posts remind me. Let's start by pointing out that I never said all airfields. Let's then move onto the fact that many airfields around the world, including in the US, serve a dual purpose. One example of this is Mehrabad International Airport, the main commercial airport in Iran for domestic flights. It also serves as a military base.

liam76: 3 - They in no way call for putting troops on the ground.

If I destroy a facility I don't need to occupy it to make sure it isn't being used :


Oh look, more ignorance. What a shock. Apparently you are unaware that some of the key Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow are deeply buried in a mountain. There is no way to determine if it is destroyed from the air.

liam76: So since US strategy has at some point included power infrastructure it must be included in every future campaign?


It has been a central part of the strategy for every US bombing campaign since Serbia. It is vital in the effort to cripple the air defense network since most of that stuff uses electricity. Iran had a more sophisticated air defense system than Serbia or Iraq did.

liam76: 2 - We weren't going in to try and take out a few select sites, we were trying to wipe out an army. The question, as always with you on the topic of Israel is are you being too dishonest or obtuse to see the difference?


This part isn't ignorant, it is just plain stupid. Are you aware of what country lies immediately to the east of Iran? It's a place called Afghanistan. You may have heard that the US is involved in a war there. If the US was to get into an armed conflict with Iran, the US would undoubtedly take measure to ensure that the Iranian military is prevented from making attacks on our nearby units. It would be the height of folly to leave the Iranian Army unmolested in that situation. The leaders of the US military are not as ignorant and unintelligent as you, so any plan for strikes in Iran would take this into account.

I am simply being honest about the scope of what a US attack to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program would entail. It really has almost nothing to do with Israel.
 
2012-10-11 11:50:37 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: 2 - Bib doesn't want to bomb them today, he wants support for it if they cross a "Red line" (your own post mentions anger over not setting red lines, not over not bombing, nor does it show any desire to bomb them today, so your claim about his stance for even wanting to bomb them is just as dishonest as all your other comments on Israel)

Yeah that whole "Triggering a US attack" part was in reference to the flower and puppy airlift., not bombing., Right.


I think we are doen here.

You are too dishonest/stupid to have thsi conversation if you can't get past "attacking their facilities if they don't stop developing nukes" doesn't equal "attack them."

Nice link with an inflammatory headline that has no proof bib sais anything of the sort.
 
2012-10-11 11:54:22 AM

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: 2 - Bib doesn't want to bomb them today, he wants support for it if they cross a "Red line" (your own post mentions anger over not setting red lines, not over not bombing, nor does it show any desire to bomb them today, so your claim about his stance for even wanting to bomb them is just as dishonest as all your other comments on Israel)

Yeah that whole "Triggering a US attack" part was in reference to the flower and puppy airlift., not bombing., Right.

I think we are doen here.

You are too dishonest/stupid to have thsi conversation if you can't get past "attacking their facilities if they don't stop developing nukes" doesn't equal "attack them."

Nice link with an inflammatory headline that has no proof bib sais anything of the sort.


Sorry if my facts got in the way of your propaganda. Really you should try to educate yourself before you post. You might not end up looking so silly all the time if you did.
 
2012-10-11 03:19:16 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: 2 - Bib doesn't want to bomb them today, he wants support for it if they cross a "Red line" (your own post mentions anger over not setting red lines, not over not bombing, nor does it show any desire to bomb them today, so your claim about his stance for even wanting to bomb them is just as dishonest as all your other comments on Israel)

Yeah that whole "Triggering a US attack" part was in reference to the flower and puppy airlift., not bombing., Right.

I think we are doen here.

You are too dishonest/stupid to have thsi conversation if you can't get past "attacking their facilities if they don't stop developing nukes" doesn't equal "attack them."

Nice link with an inflammatory headline that has no proof bib sais anything of the sort.

Sorry if my facts got in the way of your propaganda. Really you should try to educate yourself before you post. You might not end up looking so silly all the time if you did.


What facts? The fact that your own links don't back you up??
 
2012-10-11 03:23:52 PM

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: 2 - Bib doesn't want to bomb them today, he wants support for it if they cross a "Red line" (your own post mentions anger over not setting red lines, not over not bombing, nor does it show any desire to bomb them today, so your claim about his stance for even wanting to bomb them is just as dishonest as all your other comments on Israel)

Yeah that whole "Triggering a US attack" part was in reference to the flower and puppy airlift., not bombing., Right.

I think we are doen here.

You are too dishonest/stupid to have thsi conversation if you can't get past "attacking their facilities if they don't stop developing nukes" doesn't equal "attack them."

Nice link with an inflammatory headline that has no proof bib sais anything of the sort.

Sorry if my facts got in the way of your propaganda. Really you should try to educate yourself before you post. You might not end up looking so silly all the time if you did.

What facts? The fact that your own links don't back you up??


Tell us will it only be puppies that Bibi intends to send to Iran, or is he going to send cute cuddly kittens too? Perhaps a nice fruit basket? Jam of the month club?
 
2012-10-12 06:32:34 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: 2 - Bib doesn't want to bomb them today, he wants support for it if they cross a "Red line" (your own post mentions anger over not setting red lines, not over not bombing, nor does it show any desire to bomb them today, so your claim about his stance for even wanting to bomb them is just as dishonest as all your other comments on Israel)

Yeah that whole "Triggering a US attack" part was in reference to the flower and puppy airlift., not bombing., Right.

I think we are doen here.

You are too dishonest/stupid to have thsi conversation if you can't get past "attacking their facilities if they don't stop developing nukes" doesn't equal "attack them."

Nice link with an inflammatory headline that has no proof bib sais anything of the sort.

Sorry if my facts got in the way of your propaganda. Really you should try to educate yourself before you post. You might not end up looking so silly all the time if you did.

What facts? The fact that your own links don't back you up??

Tell us will it only be puppies that Bibi intends to send to Iran, or is he going to send cute cuddly kittens too? Perhaps a nice fruit basket? Jam of the month club?


Back to puppies?

What is really sad about your fundamental dishonesty here (what bibi actually said, trying to support your 'smoking crater' argument with air fields but really only mean bombing some airfields, etc) is that I have specifically addressed that BS point. Saying he doesn't want to turn iran into a smoking crater doesn't have fark all to do with puppies.

It is like whackamole of lies with you whenever Israel is involved.
 
2012-10-12 09:48:10 AM

liam76: Back to puppies?

What is really sad about your fundamental dishonesty here (what bibi actually said, trying to support your 'smoking crater' argument with air fields but really only mean bombing some airfields, etc) is that I have specifically addressed that BS point. Saying he doesn't want to turn iran into a smoking crater doesn't have fark all to do with puppies.

It is like whackamole of lies with you whenever Israel is involved.


Man that is unbelievably pathetic even for you. You are really flailing in this one. It really upsets you when someone presents the reality of what the splendid little war you are pumping for would actually be like doesn't it?
 
2012-10-12 09:59:15 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Back to puppies?

What is really sad about your fundamental dishonesty here (what bibi actually said, trying to support your 'smoking crater' argument with air fields but really only mean bombing some airfields, etc) is that I have specifically addressed that BS point. Saying he doesn't want to turn iran into a smoking crater doesn't have fark all to do with puppies.

It is like whackamole of lies with you whenever Israel is involved.

Man that is unbelievably pathetic even for you. You are really flailing in this one. It really upsets you when someone presents the reality of what the splendid little war you are pumping for would actually be like doesn't it?


No what is pathetic is you not being able to make 1 post without lying or making shiat up (keep bringing up that reality that you obviously don't understand).

I am not for bombing Iran.

That doesn't stop me from pointing out your lies.
 
2012-10-12 10:05:40 AM

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Back to puppies?

What is really sad about your fundamental dishonesty here (what bibi actually said, trying to support your 'smoking crater' argument with air fields but really only mean bombing some airfields, etc) is that I have specifically addressed that BS point. Saying he doesn't want to turn iran into a smoking crater doesn't have fark all to do with puppies.

It is like whackamole of lies with you whenever Israel is involved.

Man that is unbelievably pathetic even for you. You are really flailing in this one. It really upsets you when someone presents the reality of what the splendid little war you are pumping for would actually be like doesn't it?

No what is pathetic is you not being able to make 1 post without lying or making shiat up (keep bringing up that reality that you obviously don't understand).

I am not for bombing Iran.

That doesn't stop me from pointing out your lies.


You aren't for bombing Iran? So what do you think Israel and the US should do if Iran goes past the magical "red line"? Would you unequivocally condemn military action in response?
 
2012-10-12 10:17:20 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: You aren't for bombing Iran? So what do you think Israel and the US should do if Iran goes past the magical "red line"? Would you unequivocally condemn military action in response?


I would be more than happy to engage in what if's with a rational honest person I could exchange ideas with.

That isn't you.

Bibi is for setting a redline and bombing nuclear facilities if Iran crosses it, you pretend that means he wants to turn the country into a smoking crater.

Even somebody as hawkish as he is knows that would unify every muslim in the world, and give weight to MB type groups in the "arab srping" to get serious about destroying Israel vice using it as a distraction from their own messes.
 
2012-10-12 10:32:52 AM

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: You aren't for bombing Iran? So what do you think Israel and the US should do if Iran goes past the magical "red line"? Would you unequivocally condemn military action in response?

I would be more than happy to engage in what if's with a rational honest person I could exchange ideas with.

That isn't you.

Bibi is for setting a redline and bombing nuclear facilities if Iran crosses it, you pretend that means he wants to turn the country into a smoking crater.

Even somebody as hawkish as he is knows that would unify every muslim in the world, and give weight to MB type groups in the "arab srping" to get serious about destroying Israel vice using it as a distraction from their own messes.


So now you admit that Bibi is in favor of bombing Iran, which you are not. It's nice to see you oppose an Israeli policy for once.

But as I pointed out above, it isn't simply a matter of bombing the nuclear facilitates alone. That's why Bibi is anxious to get the US involved. Israel simply does not have the capabilities required for the type of sustained and widespread bombing campaign that would be required to eliminate Iran's nuclear program, both due to the nature of the nuclear targets themselves (see my reference to Fordow above) and due to the the wide array of other targets that would have to be hit in order to eliminate Iranian threats to the strike forces. Neither the US or Israel is going to fly multiple missions deep into Iran without eliminating the air defense system of Iran. Even the most minimal program required would be widespread enough to trigger the very backlash you fear. And that's without even considering what military actions would result for Iranian counter measure s such as attacking US shipping an forces in the Persian Gulf.
 
2012-10-12 10:55:53 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: So now you admit that Bibi is in favor of bombing Iran, which you are not.


Can't get through your first sentence without lying, can you?

Bibi is for setting a redline and bombing nuclear facilities if Iran crosses it:


I am for shooting you if you break into my house in the middle of the night.

Do you think it is honest to change that to "I am for shooting you"?
Do you think it is honest to change that to "I am for shooting you execution style and mutilating your dead body"?


It's nice to see you oppose an Israeli policy for once.

Two for two with the lies!!!
 
Displayed 306 of 306 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report