Should we stop providing humanitarian aid to Africa?

[Theben]

blah

I thought libertarians were against imperialism, at least in theory.

Lower US casualties = Good Thing.

Two words: body armor.


Better yet, stop getting involved in stupid wars.

[Blaupanzer]

Seen a budget lately, Mr Floyd? One of bush's will do, altho the first Obama budget is out there. Your "endless spending on social programs" is only a small part of that budget. These programs mean YOU don't have to support your parents or grandparents who cannot afford their medical bills without help. You don't have to kick into the "family pool" to take care of your none-too-bright cousin and her three babies, etc. This was life prior to social security, medicare, and medicaid to select a few.

The military budget, including the cost for two mixed popularity wars, is substantially larger than social programs. Further, interest on the debt already accrued is almost as large as those social expenses. Of course the biggest recent item for two years in a row is running up that debt so we can protect the screwed-up bank managers from being lynched as they so richly deserve.

[Blaupanzer]

I thought libertarians were against imperialism, at least in theory.
Lower US casualties = Good Thing. Two words: body armor. Better yet, stop getting involved in stupid wars.

Most of us are against imperialism and preemptive wars. We are not opposed to defense, as in kill every Al Qaeda member we can identify world wide for their attack on us.

[Whoha]

The military budget, including the cost for two mixed popularity wars, is substantially larger than social programs.

Are you comparing the full costs of the wars against a single year of non-discretionary spending?

Further, interest on the debt already accrued is almost as large as those social expenses.

servicing the debt actually costs somewhat less than any single non-discretionary item.

[Q Classic]

Better yet, stop getting involved in stupid wars.

Don't be ridiculous. Easy conquest gives American the horn.

[Zkribbler]

Most of us are against imperialism and preemptive wars. We are not opposed to defense, as in kill every Al Qaeda member we can identify world wide for their attack on us.

Pre-emptive wars are okay, but the last one was Israel's 6-Day War, where Israel pre-empted the imminent attack by three of its neighbors.

Bush tried to call the Iraqi War "preemptive," but there was never any threat of imminent attack. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was a war of aggression.

[Kidlicious]

Pre-emptive wars are okay, but the last one was Israel's 6-Day War, where Israel pre-empted the imminent attack by three of its neighbors.

Bush tried to call the Iraqi War "preemptive," but there was never any threat of imminent attack. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was a war of aggression.

Good point. And when was the last time the US fought a defensive war?

[Dinner]

The F-22 is NOT a "worthless" weapon. It's a next generation air superiority aircraft that will SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the casualties of US military personnel, regardless of the enemy we are fighting.

That's funny, then why, after 7 years into the "war on terror" hasn't the F-22 flown a single combat mission? Why is it 4-5 times the price of the F-15 it replaces but it is only marginally better? If it was so valuable you'd figure they would have found at least one single itsy bitsy combat mission for it to fly during the last 7 years of war.

Face it, the F-22 is pork. It's a god damned jobs program and not a needed weapons system.

[Dinner]

Two words: body armor.


Better yet, stop getting involved in stupid wars.

Wow, no there are some cost effective ideas if I ever heard them.

[Felch]

That's funny, then why, after 7 years into the "war on terror" hasn't the F-22 flown a single combat mission?

Because Tangos don't fly.

[Patroklos]

The population balloons because the people live agricultural lives in which children are an asset to tend animals or work farms.

Not always true. A good portion of Aftica is no longer agrarian, but they continue to breed like rabits because of cultural left overs. It happened to everyone though.

That's funny, then why, after 7 years into the "war on terror" hasn't the F-22 flown a single combat mission?

It has deployed several times Oerdin. In any case, the value of the F-22 is not that it is useful in low intensity conflicts, but that it continues to make high intesity conflicts not worth anyones time.

Why is it 8 times the price of the F-15 it replaces but it is only marginally better?

1.) Its roughly 4.5 times the cost.
2.) Reading wikis summary of Red Flag results, the F-22 is easily many times better than an F-15
3.) We will have a projected airframe total of 185ish F-22s at the end of constuction. We currently operate 660 F-15s that will eventual be replace mostly by those fewer F-22s and a few F-23s. Care to crunch the maintanence numbers for us?

If it was so valuable you figure they would have found at least one single itsy bitsy combat mission for it to fly.

The point, Oerdin, is to not have to fly air combat missions. Would you prefer we go around provoking state warfare?

[Q Classic]

The principle, which is more or less effective and correct, is to have as many scary powerful guns that people don't **** with you on a conventional basis.

By that metric, the F-22 works admirably.

Of course, that doesn't mean the F-22 is effective in combating things like terrorism, but that's what the UAVs and human intelligence and public relations/psyops are for.

Frankly, I don't think arguing over F-22s or the upcoming F-35s is really worth it--the numbers we're ordering are good enough, and they're keeping Americans employed (shutting down those programs wouldn't help our situation at all, honestly), and they're helping spur new technologies.

[Q Classic]

3.) We will have a projected airframe total of 185ish F-22s at the end of constuction. We currently operate 660 F-15s that will eventual be replace mostly by those fewer F-22s and a few F-23s. Care to crunch the maintanence numbers for us?

I'm pretty sure no F-23s are being constructed, since they didn't go with Northrop-Grumman's prototype.

[Dinner]

The F-22 has flown exactly zero combat missions EVER: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ar...ig_to_fail.php

To compare the military has found crap loads of combat missions for the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18: http://www.f-16.net/news_article2283.html

Sounds like a unless jobs program to me abet a shiny pretty one. In any event it's time to kill this cash wasting hole in the ground. Sure, the Marine Corp, the Navy, and the Air Force each all want bespoken planes built just for them and them alone but that is a waste of money. It's time to eliminate some of these redundant systems and standardize down to just a few.

[Patroklos]

I'm pretty sure no F-23s are being constructed, since they didn't go with Northrop-Grumman's prototype.

That was supposed to be F-35, I have no idea how I ended up typing F-23!

The F-22 has flown exactly zero combat missions EVER

OMG THE TRIDENT HAS FLOWN ZERO COMBAT MISSIONS EVAR!!! I didn't say that it had flown combat missions, I said it has deployed. There are all sorts of things we have that we have not or rarely use but have very real and obvious utility on potential battlefields.

To compare the military has found crap loads of missions for the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18:

Thats nice. I hope you realize, however, that that has exactly zero relevance as to what missions the F-22 is good for and does absolutely nothing to boon your arguement above.

Sounds like a unless jobs program to me abet a shiny pretty one. In any event it's time to kill this cash wasting hole in the ground.

Thats nice. This is also irrelevant to your erroneous assesment above.