Obama Defense Policy:

[Frodo]

Billions for tributes, but not a penny for defense!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090406/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/defense_budget

Since the F-22 has never been used in Iraq or Afghanistan, we need to cut it according to Gates. I wonder if that applies to submarines too? Now that we giving up our status as the big dog, I guess the plan is to roll over on our back and pee on ourselves when threatened.

 

[2minkey]

wow. it's gonna be tough to do much with not even one penny!!!!

 

[spike]

What is your specific problem with Gate's plan there Frodo?

I'm not sure why you're getting all alarmist. You think we need more F-22s?

 

[MrBishop]

Billions for tributes, but not a penny for defense!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090406/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/defense_budget

Since the F-22 has never been used in Iraq or Afghanistan, we need to cut it according to Gates. I wonder if that applies to submarines too? Now that we giving up our status as the big dog, I guess the plan is to roll over on our back and pee on ourselves when threatened.

You do realize that they're spending MORE on defense than last year, right?

 

[2minkey]

well, more f-22s would be helpful. having real air superiority is kinda, um, a big deal.

 

[MrBishop]

well, more f-22s would be helpful. having real air superiority is kinda, um, a big deal.

You already have air-superiority with the outstanding order unfilled. There are a certain number being built for you already...

In Iraq and Afghanistan, these would do

 

[Gato_Solo]

You already have air-superiority with the outstanding order unfilled. There are a certain number being built for you already...

In Iraq and Afghanistan, these would do

Its not just about Iraq and Afghanistan. Its about protection from all threats.

 

[Altron]

Why don't we use the F-22s then?

Like, how about this. If we have a target, instead of sending an under-armored Humvee filled with troops to get killed, why not just send a F-22 to destroy the target?

We have vastly superior firepower. That firepower should be utilized in order to prevent American casualties, not cut because it's too "high tech"

I doubt Iraq has a defense system that's effective against our F-22s. Common Sense 101 - If your enemy's defense has a weak spot, exploit it. We know from 6 bitter years that they have enough roadside bombs and suicide attackers to make a war fought on the ground cost a lot of our soldiers' lives. One guy in a F-22 bombing a town is a much less risky for us than sending 50 guys in unarmored humvees against suicide bombers.

With UAVs and cruise missiles, there's no reason for the US army to ever have to come in range of enemy weapons. Use satellite imagery to find a target. Use a cruise missile to eliminate it. It's simple.

You don't win a war by occupation. You win it by so effectively destroying your opponent that they will never have the resources or the motivation to attack you again. Right now, there aren't repercussions for them blowing up our soldiers. If we make it clear that any attack on an American soldier or civilian will result in a massive counter-assault, they won't want to attack us anymore.

As Sean Connery said, "If they pull a knife, you pull a gun. If they send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue."

 

[2minkey]

Its not just about Iraq and Afghanistan. Its about protection from all threats.

exactly. lots of folks have mig29s and better these days.

 

[Professur]

Why don't we use the F-22s then?

Like, how about this. If we have a target, instead of sending an under-armored Humvee filled with troops to get killed, why not just send a F-22 to destroy the target?

We have vastly superior firepower. That firepower should be utilized in order to prevent American casualties, not cut because it's too "high tech"

I doubt Iraq has a defense system that's effective against our F-22s. Common Sense 101 - If your enemy's defense has a weak spot, exploit it. We know from 6 bitter years that they have enough roadside bombs and suicide attackers to make a war fought on the ground cost a lot of our soldiers' lives. One guy in a F-22 bombing a town is a much less risky for us than sending 50 guys in unarmored humvees against suicide bombers.

With UAVs and cruise missiles, there's no reason for the US army to ever have to come in range of enemy weapons. Use satellite imagery to find a target. Use a cruise missile to eliminate it. It's simple.

You don't win a war by occupation. You win it by so effectively destroying your opponent that they will never have the resources or the motivation to attack you again. Right now, there aren't repercussions for them blowing up our soldiers. If we make it clear that any attack on an American soldier or civilian will result in a massive counter-assault, they won't want to attack us anymore.

As Sean Connery said, "If they pull a knife, you pull a gun. If they send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue."

I thought that was Travolta in Swordfish.


The problem with bombing the shit outta everything is ... what happens when you get a sniper on the roof of an orphanage? What happens when you have a chemical lab, or buildings with gas lines? Bombs and missles are good for taking out infrastructure and innocents. Very seldom do you actually get many bad guys. Not to mention the cost. One round trip flight with an F-22 costs about as much as the Humvee, without firing a shot. A very expensive way to wage peace.

 

[MrBishop]

I thought that was Travolta in Swordfish.

The Untoucheables..also with fine quotes like "Isn't that just like a wop? Brings a knife to a gun fight. "

I'll echo your sentiment to Altron, and also remind him that the USA isn't at war with Iraq...or an army anymore..that was over roughly 2 weeks after it started.

This is guerilla warfare now... street-to-street shooting at best, bomb-disposal exercises, and police-like raids. The F-22's are overkill. Keep'em for when you go against N.Korea, China or Russia.

Attack Helicopters still have some use at street-level combat..but jets? Nope.

Cruise missiles cost ~$500-600,000 each.
5mton nuclear missile ~$1,000,000 - why not really save money and American lives...pull all the troops out and turn Iraq into the world's largest glass ashtray?

 

[Professur]

Because there isn`t enough plutonium in the world to destroy more than a few handfuls of cities. Don't forget that chyrnobyl rendered a larger area uninhabitable than the bombs that took Japan outta the war.

 

[Altron]

Well, as a corollary, I don't feel that we should be involved in any long-term occupations of hostile countries. If there's a conflict, we need to get in, destroy all targets of military, industrial, and economic value, then get out.

The reason Iraq is a disaster is because we're letting them make us fight on their terms - in situations where we cannot bring our superior firepower to bear. They want us to fight in urban areas, in close range combat, where their numbers and knowledge of the area outweighs our superior training and weaponry.

If we keep fighting right where they want us, we're not going to win. We need to pull back a little bit, set up a defensive perimeter, and force them to fight the war on our terms, in a way where our vastly superior firepower can be brought to use.

 

[MrBishop]

If we keep fighting right where they want us, we're not going to win. We need to pull back a little bit, set up a defensive perimeter, and force them to fight the war on our terms, in a way where our vastly superior firepower can be brought to use.

That's what you had before all this went down..and it wasn't 'enough'.
You had Saddam stuck in his little country, not able to project his power beyond his borders...but Bush decided to stick his nose in.

 

[Altron]

If I had been in charge, we would have just sent in a dozen soldiers to make it look like an accident

 

[Professur]

fourtunately, at about that time, you were still reposessing snowblowers.

 

[MrBishop]

If I had been in charge, we would have just sent in a dozen soldiers to make it look like an accident

He had more than a dozen 'copies' of himself making the tours. GL finding the real Saddam to provide that 'accident'

 

[Gato_Solo]

Why don't we use the F-22s then?

Like, how about this. If we have a target, instead of sending an under-armored Humvee filled with troops to get killed, why not just send a F-22 to destroy the target?

Because we may want to capture those folks.

We have vastly superior firepower. That firepower should be utilized in order to prevent American casualties, not cut because it's too "high tech"

I doubt Iraq has a defense system that's effective against our F-22s. Common Sense 101 - If your enemy's defense has a weak spot, exploit it. We know from 6 bitter years that they have enough roadside bombs and suicide attackers to make a war fought on the ground cost a lot of our soldiers' lives. One guy in a F-22 bombing a town is a much less risky for us than sending 50 guys in unarmored humvees against suicide bombers.

With UAVs and cruise missiles, there's no reason for the US army to ever have to come in range of enemy weapons. Use satellite imagery to find a target. Use a cruise missile to eliminate it. It's simple.

You don't win a war by occupation. You win it by so effectively destroying your opponent that they will never have the resources or the motivation to attack you again. Right now, there aren't repercussions for them blowing up our soldiers. If we make it clear that any attack on an American soldier or civilian will result in a massive counter-assault, they won't want to attack us anymore.

Umm...public opinion has a lot to do with that mindset. In order to have any positive view on what we do, we have to seem more humane than our adversary. Sure, flattening a city to get 'payback' is a nice idea on paper, but you risk having an entire country of beligerents on your ass if you do. Remember...every army is outnumbered in enemy territory.

As Sean Connery said, "If they pull a knife, you pull a gun. If they send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue."

True, but that contradicts your entire statement, doesn't it?

 

[Altron]

The government and the military exist to protect and defend the United States, not to operate in the best interests of any other countries besides the US and our allies.

The fanatics over there know that if they attack us, we'll make speeches about it and and put American flag bumper stickers on our cars, then send over under-armed troops, so that they won't even have to leave their own country to kill more Americans.

We need to be able to make sure that the punishment for an attack on America completely outweighs any possible gains that a religious fanatic could achieve.

 

[2minkey]

we'll make speeches about it and and put American flag bumper stickers on our cars, then send over under-armed troops, so that they won't even have to leave their own country to kill more Americans.

well, how dare anyone question the bumperstickered cheerleading wisdom of our cost-cutting overlords. but hey, it doesn't really matter, because the soldiers are mostly working class anyway. who care if they become banta fodder? they don't matter when you got a silver spoon plucked right outta big daddy's ass.

hey, here's some neato lego space guys!!!