Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's see....Healthy people, or more weapons of aggression ?
Well isn't that for congress to decide? Don't worry though...I'm sure that the people you elected wouldn't actually bail out on their promises now would they? I mean you'd vote for another party if they.....oh wait, no you wouldn't....hmmmm perhaps in there lies the answer?
The F-22 cost of development was approximately $65 billion. That's a lot of money.
The costs of universal health care have been estimated at $1.5 trillion. That's a lot of money.
Just an illustration...
$1,500,000,000,000
$65,000,000,000
Since we're paying for all of this with monopoly money anyway, what's the difference?
Now that's what I call interesting. Since the F-22 costs less to develop than universal health care, we should go for the weaponry and not the health.
I must say, I hope you don't have any plans for seeking elective office. You might have a few problems trying to explain this logic to the population in general.
And if it's all monopoly money, then we should be able to have both, shouldn't we?
Well isn't that for congress to decide? Don't worry though...I'm sure that the people you elected wouldn't actually bail out on their promises now would they? I mean you'd vote for another party if they.....oh wait, no you wouldn't....hmmmm perhaps in there lies the answer?
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,774,074 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred314X
Now that's what I call interesting. Since the F-22 costs less to develop than universal health care, we should go for the weaponry and not the health.
Strawman anyone? Presented with an elementary "either-or" type dismissal of the F-22 program, I felt a simple cost comparison of program costs would be amusing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred314X
I must say, I hope you don't have any plans for seeking elective office. You might have a few problems trying to explain this logic to the population in general.
While I certainly have not made plans for attempting to secure an elected office, I fail to see how logic has played any part in any election in recent memory or, quite possibly, ever. Play to the emotions Fred. Promise the world, the world votes for you. Keep that tip in your bag in case you ever run for office, you'll do much better than trying to explain yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred314X
And if it's all monopoly money, then we should be able to have both, shouldn't we?
Exactly. What's the difference between paying off 100 years worth of debt and 104.333333 years worth of debt?
I'll let teh miliotasry decide what they7 need really. But there will be a politcal fight like when the congressman and senators fought to retain bases the miltray said they didn't need or want on base closing.
Our Military has been the favorite place to pork out for those who benefit from their paid efforts to aquire more "stuff", the guise is always couched in terms of defense needs in a dangerous world. I think Eisenhower was right when he warned against this cabal of military and industry. The B2 was a very successfull project for those who got the $$ from it, the Air Force has been at a loss to find a true "mission", for this behemoth. Someone posted earlier on the prospect of unmanned craft being the wave of future combat planes, less dollars spent trying to accomodate the human requirements, makes sense.
The United States hasn't lost a fighter jet to air-to-air combat in over 30 years. There's nothing to compete with the current generation of F-15, 16, 18s. The F-22 is a welfare program for the Military Industrial Complex. The F-22 is so fragile is isn't even used in combat today.
The world is going electronic and unmanned aircraft. Putting money in the F-22 is a waste.
The United States hasn't lost a fighter jet to air-to-air combat in over 30 years.
Which major wars did US fight in the last 30 years? How many air to air combat situation did our air-force encounter in last 30 years? Not losing a fighter under these conditions isn't a great achievement.
Quote:
There's nothing to compete with the current generation of F-15, 16, 18s.
How do you know? Are you an expert on defense issues? And more importantly what do you know about air defense 10 years from now?
Quote:
The F-22 is a welfare program for the Military Industrial Complex. The F-22 is so fragile is isn't even used in combat today.
Who says it is fragile? The fact that F-22 or B-2 aren't used often in Iraq is understandable. But neither of us knows when and for what they are used. That is kept secret.
Quote:
The world is going electronic and unmanned aircraft. Putting money in the F-22 is a waste.
What world? Who is getting unmanned aircraft that are autonomously combat capable? You just repeat buzzwords you picked up somewhere...
Personally I have no opinion on if the F-22 program should be continued or not. There are many questions to be answered, most importantly visualizing future threats. Not many people are capable of doing so accurately.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
