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.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,763,471 times
Reputation: 3587
Advertisements
I was talking to to couple of Air Force guys this week that I have known for a long time and trust their honesty. They told me something that really shocked the hell out of me and that is that they believe that fully HALF of the men killed in Iraq could have been SAVED if not for corporate America's meddling in the defense budget!
What they told me was that the USAF has drone unmanned planes that they can use to patrol the sky and these things have very powerful cameras that can almost "count the hairs on your head" from 10,000 feet up where you cannot hear or see them. They can see night and day and can even tell when you are carrying a gun that has recently been fired because it gives off heat! He said that these can be used to "watch over" troops on the ground and spot the enemy long before they engage our troops. The can either then warn the troops or even fire a missle and kill the enemy- before the troops are in any danger.
Then he told me why they could not save more lives- they have only about 12 of the planes and they could easily use 100 or more of them. And some of those planes are in Afganistan. But the military, although the troops need more of these planes, have been told that the politicians would rather keep Lockheed Martin booming by ordering more of the F-22 planes which are a relic of the cold war and have not been used in either of the current wars and are unlikely to be used anywhere in the future except at airshows.
Where would you rather spend the money? Where the soldiers say the need it or where the corporate interest want it spent?
I don't want to tread into the issue of whether or not soldiers died in vain, nor do I want to assign greed as the underlying motive for choosing F-22's over unmanned drones other than to say that it is clear the that Air Force prefers fighter jets to drones. During the recent budget hearings, Sec Gates made that point very clear as did Adm. Mullen when he suggested that the F-22 and the F-35 may be the last manned fighters to be produced much to the consternation of the Air Force brass.
Institutionally, the Air Force is lead by former fighter jocks and the Predators, like the A-10, just aren't sexy enough for their taste which leads me to favorably consider a proposal written by Robert Farley simply do away with the Air Force as a branch of the military, leaving air Superiority to the Navy and Marine Corps and unmanned aircraft like the Predator to the Army.
I wish people could put things in proper persepctive in this country. We are considering which weapon system is more important so we can throw more/less money at the "problem" of fighting wars and killing people in countries we should not have troops in, much less hundreds of thousands of them (including the gravy train of contractors and assorted spooks and vultures)
War is the problem. Its that simple. We have no business being in either Iraq or Afghanistan with large armies bombing the populace(s).
We create more terrorism daily. And it's GREAT for business!!
I was talking to to couple of Air Force guys this week that I have known for a long time and trust their honesty. They told me something that really shocked the hell out of me and that is that they believe that fully HALF of the men killed in Iraq could have been SAVED if not for corporate America's meddling in the defense budget!
What they told me was that the USAF has drone unmanned planes that they can use to patrol the sky and these things have very powerful cameras that can almost "count the hairs on your head" from 10,000 feet up where you cannot hear or see them. They can see night and day and can even tell when you are carrying a gun that has recently been fired because it gives off heat! He said that these can be used to "watch over" troops on the ground and spot the enemy long before they engage our troops. The can either then warn the troops or even fire a missle and kill the enemy- before the troops are in any danger. Then he told me why they could not save more lives- they have only about 12 of the planes and they could easily use 100 or more of them. And some of those planes are in Afganistan. But the military, although the troops need more of these planes, have been told that the politicians would rather keep Lockheed Martin booming by ordering more of the F-22 planes which are a relic of the cold war and have not been used in either of the current wars and are unlikely to be used anywhere in the future except at airshows.
Where would you rather spend the money? Where the soldiers say the need it or where the corporate interest want it spent?
Time to find new friends to "trust." Your friends have absolutely no clue what they are talking about by claiming we only have "12" unmanned drones. I've seen with my own two eyes more than 12 on one aircraft apron on one military base.
Furthermore, every branch of the military has their own unmanned aircraft, as do the CIA, NSA, etc.
In this context, corporate America has NOT caused needless deaths. Your friends have bought into someone's BS.
Time to find new friends to "trust." Your friends have absolutely no clue what they are talking about by claiming we only have "12" unmanned drones. I've seen with my own two eyes more than 12 on one aircraft apron on one military base.
Furthermore, every branch of the military has their own unmanned aircraft, as do the CIA, NSA, etc.
In this context, corporate America has NOT caused needless deaths. Your friends have bought into someone's BS.
It depends on his friends and your timelines because in 2003 there were only 48 drones being flown by both the CIA and the Air Force in the Afghan theater of operations.
Regardless of the accuracy of the account that there were only 12 drones in all, everything else is 100% accurate. If it was found that dandelions cured cancer, the AMA and Big Pharma would do everything in their power to conceal that information because it would decimate their bottom line. If a cheap unmanned drone can be more effective at 0.1% of the cost, the defense contractors would be doing everything in their power to change the subject lest they lose billions.
Of course the cheapest method is to wage peace which requires zero capital outlay, but, then our taxes would instead be going to repairing infrastructure and feeding starving Timmy's in Appalachia (or would it be Ernesto's in El Paso?). Can't have that, can we?
The point is war is about money. And everyone involved knows that.
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.
