New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - They deserve better !
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

They deserve better !

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options Page  1 2 3>
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/31/2008 at 08:48
martin3175 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: January/19/2005
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Points: 3773
----Our fighting men and women deserve better ! Over the last few months, all F-15's were grounding due to structural failures revealed as several essentially fell apart while airborne. The average KC tanker aircraft is over 45 years old ! C-130's that flew in Nam are still active. The list goes on and on !Congressional bickering needs to stop, and replacements procured .
 
From the Air Force Association daily online report :
 
Symptoms of Old Age: Gen John Corley, head of Air Combat Command, carries in his hip pocket a list of age-related ills affecting his fleet. Talking with reporters March 27 in Washington D.C., Corley rattled off a litany of problems and restrictions. His F-15s, for example, are prohibited from exceeding 660 knots or Mach 1.5 (whichever comes first) because of a weakness in the vertical control surfaces. These aircraft were designed to be able to dash at speeds beyond Mach 3. Further, some 63 of his F-16s are flying with cracked bulkheads. His A-10s have a nosegear weight-bearing problem that won't allow the Hogs to operate at more than 46,000 pounds, when they're designed for 51,000 pounds. His B-1s can't open their speed brakes above Mach .9 because of a hinge problem, and his B-2s can't climb faster than 280 knots indicated airspeed because of cracks propagating from bolt holes in the windshield. The glitches are just some of the problems affecting operations, to say nothing of vanishing parts vendors or lengthening maintenance hours per flying hour. Corley said that $0.86 on the dollar of his procurement budget goes to keeping his machines flying, versus $0.14 that goes toward buying new capability.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/31/2008 at 17:17
lucznik View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/27/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1436
I don't disagree that the military should have the best equipment available but, I still have to ask the question:
 
How do you suggest we pay for these proposed new planes?  Don't they cost something like $100+ MILLION dollars each
 
Last I checked our nation was laboring under a budget deficit that is astronomically high, caused largely by our protracted involvement in a "war on terror" that is being waged in a country that was not actually involved in 9/11 or any other act of international terrorism. 
 
We are, despite the assurances of our current "Commander in Chief," also well on our way to an economic recession. 
 
I'm more interested in ensuring my kids are housed, fed, and clothed and praying that my family vehicle doesn't require any major maintenance anytime soon. 
I'm just not that concerned with making sure Air Force jockeys can play at Mach 3+. 
 
 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/31/2008 at 17:31
martin3175 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: January/19/2005
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Points: 3773

from ground pounders to fighter jocks...regardless- they deserve equipment that works as it should and isn't life threatening.....

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/31/2008 at 18:15
BeltFed View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: February/12/2008
Location: Ky
Status: Offline
Points: 16102
The Federal Governments first responsibility is to secure the national defence and not manage our retirement (social security) or provide everyone with healthcare. When you compare on paper our airforces with those of the rest of the world; ours is second to none. When you consider that most of the combat aircraft that we have today were coming into service the same time I started my career some 30 years ago; then I see the generals point. How many of you are driving cars that are 30+ years old?
I had a friend that turned down a last flight in a B-52 before he transferd to the then new B-1; that B-52 did not come back (all crew lost). Do you want or do you want your kid to defend this nation in a high perfomance aircraft that is older than you are and only capabe of 50% of it's original performance.
It's not the government's job to house me, cloth me, or feed me; because if they did they would rule me. It is there job to defend me with my tax dollars so we remain free! 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/31/2008 at 18:44
lucznik View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/27/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1436
Originally posted by BeltFed BeltFed wrote:

It's not the government's job to house me, cloth me, or feed me;

I'm not asking that they do any of these things for me.  I'm just not willing to sacrifice those things so that they can have new toys.


Originally posted by BeltFed BeltFed wrote:

[the government] is there job to defend me with my tax dollars so we remain free! 
When the military gets back to defending the USA from actual enemies intent on causing death/destruction on our nation's shores as opposed to nation building in Iraq, then my opinion might change. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/31/2008 at 20:22
BeltFed View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: February/12/2008
Location: Ky
Status: Offline
Points: 16102
Oh! I see now. If you approve of this war then our fighting men can have the very best, but if you don't agree with that war then they turn in their M4s and F22s and pick up 03 Springfields and Sopwith Camels.
Wonder how things would have turned out if Germany (Hitler) had not declaired war on us after Japan bombed Pearl Harbour?
Ah So. Undts ve might nics hot des problem.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/31/2008 at 21:29
Ed Connelly View Drop Down
Optics Retard
Optics Retard
Avatar
God of no Chihuahua

Joined: December/16/2007
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 24220
If we don't keep up our military, we might look out the window one day and see Hannibal and a bunch of elephants marching down the road from the back door....this country is reminding me of ancient Rome week by week....
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/31/2008 at 21:39
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Online
Points: 14321
Originally posted by lucznik lucznik wrote:

I don't disagree that the military should have the best equipment available but, I still have to ask the question:
 
How do you suggest we pay for these proposed new planes?  Don't they cost something like $100+ MILLION dollars each
 
Only when production is scaled back dramatically, causing per unit price to escalate.  They are otherwise no more expensive than the aircraft they replace, mainly because they are less costly to maintain and it requires much fewer F22's, for instance, to do the same job of 2x the same number of F15's due to improved performance, better avionics, and 3rd gen stealth technology.  So, it is actually LESS expensive to use the state of the art equipment because it is more effective.
 
Originally posted by lucznik lucznik wrote:

Last I checked our nation was laboring under a budget deficit that is astronomically high, caused largely by our protracted involvement in a "war on terror" that is being waged in a country that was not actually involved in 9/11 or any other act of international terrorism. 
 
PLEASE don't go there, because you are grievously misinformed.  Actually, your statement was 100% true until you get past the first comma.  It's also true that Iraq was not directly involved in 9/11, but that's a strawman argument.
 
Originally posted by lucznik lucznik wrote:

We are, despite the assurances of our current "Commander in Chief," also well on our way to an economic recession.  
 
That is largely media-created demagoguery.  The definition of a recession is 2 or more quarters of negative economic growth, which despite the housing bubble and subprime mortgage crisis (neither of which is the fault of the President), hasn't happened.  We've had an economic slowdown, but we are far from a recession.  If we are in a recession, why is it that every company I deal with (and I'm in the manufacturing sector) is as busy as they've ever been right now?
 
Originally posted by lucznik lucznik wrote:

I'm more interested in ensuring my kids are housed, fed, and clothed and praying that my family vehicle doesn't require any major maintenance anytime soon. 
 
...and if our military is properly equipped with new technology that provides a better performance: $ ratio and that makes our servicemen and women and therefore our country safer and stronger, these will continue to be the greatest of your worries.  Peace isn't just the absence of war; it's the result of being strong enough that your potential enemies find their efforts to threaten peace futile.  It's foolish to expect our military to use worn out equipment and not stay on the cutting edge to confront any potential threat.  We need to equip our military with the very best equipment so that they are the best trained and equipped military in the world, because strength beats appeasement and putting your head in the sand every time.
 
 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/31/2008 at 21:39
furboom View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: December/08/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 39
[actual enemies intent on causing death/destruction on our nation's shores  
[/QUOTE]
 
Oh, you mean 911 didn't happen on our soil!!!  OOOPS!!! my bad. BTW how many other attacks have happened since then?  As for funding the new "toys" , time to start cutting off some of our so called friends who have left us high and dry in our little dispute.
 on a change of pace I really enjoy this forum, thank to whomever started it and GOD bless those serving this country!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: March/31/2008 at 23:00
lucznik View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/27/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1436
Originally posted by lucznik lucznik wrote:

Last I checked our nation was laboring under a budget deficit that is astronomically high, caused largely by our protracted involvement in a "war on terror" that is being waged in a country that was not actually involved in 9/11 or any other act of international terrorism. 
Originally posted by RifleDude RifleDude wrote:

PLEASE don't go there, because you are grievously misinformed.  Actually, your statement was 100% true until you get past the first comma.  It's also true that Iraq was not directly involved in 9/11, but that's a strawman argument.
  If my statement before (and evidently after) "the first comma" is true, how does this qualify as a strawman argument? It is claimed that our troops are out fighting a "war on terror," yet the country we invaded was not engaged in international terrorism activities. This is not to say that they were good, nor that Sadaam was anything but a complete and utter tyrant deserving of damnation in the deepest depths of hell but, that doesn't qualify under the President's Post-9/11 "mandate" to root out terrorism.

Originally posted by lucznik lucznik wrote:

We are, despite the assurances of our current "Commander in Chief," also well on our way to an economic recession.  
Originally posted by RifleDude RifleDude wrote:

That is largely media-created demagoguery.  The definition of a recession is 2 or more quarters of negative economic growth, which despite the housing bubble and subprime mortgage crisis... hasn't happened.
You will note I was very careful to say that we are on our way to a recession, not that we were yet in one.  Nevertheless, it's always been interesting to me that so many people (from both sides of the political spectrum) accuse the media of "demagogy" when they report on something that demonstrates a failing of someone's personal political party or candidate/official but then, readily eat up everything that same media has too offer when it attacks a political opponent's weakness, failing, or problem.  I'm reminded of Hilary Clinton's silly claim of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" in relation to her husband's troubles with the media.
 
Originally posted by lucznik lucznik wrote:

I'm more interested in ensuring my kids are housed, fed, and clothed and praying that my family vehicle doesn't require any major maintenance anytime soon. 
Originally posted by RifleDude RifleDude wrote:

...and if our military is properly equipped with new technology that provides a better performance: $ ratio and that makes our servicemen and women and therefore our country safer and stronger, these will continue to be the greatest of your worries.  Peace isn't just the absence of war; it's the result of being strong enough that your potential enemies find their efforts to threaten peace futile.  It's foolish to expect our military to use worn out equipment and not stay on the cutting edge to confront any potential threat.  We need to equip our military with the very best equipment so that they are the best trained and equipped military in the world, because strength beats appeasement and putting your head in the sand every time.

As long as we use our military to actually protect our borders and our citizens, I don't have a problem with this premise. 

Unfortunately, invading and then "rebuilding" Iraq does not serve any of the purposes you mention. We are not there to protect the world from a nation (or group of nations) intent on world dominance as in WWI or WWII. We are not there liberating people from genocide. (Sadaam was bad and he killed a lot of people but, he pales in comparison to other world leaders engaged in horrific acts of depravity.)  We are not there punishing a nation for supporting, financing, training, or lending aid to those who did attack our borders. We are spending hundreds of billions of dollars stabilizing that country from the effects of our own  invasion while at the same time, thousands upon thousands of undocumented aliens and  hundreds of tons of illegal drugs cross our borders virtually unchallenged. 

What's foolish is for the President to use its military as a pawn of political expediency.  What's foolish is to wear out what tools the military does have trying to act as the world's police force.


Don't get me wrong rifledude, I love my country and I even support our troops.  I just don't support our President - actually I haven't since back when the first Bush was in office and even then he was mostly just riding on the coattails of President Reagan.
I do believe that the military should have the best equipment available, just not for the purpose of international policing, regime changing and/or nation-building which is how they are currently being used - at unreasonable expense in equipment,  money, and most importantly lives. 
I support the idea of the "war on terror" but believe that its practice has strayed far from the mark and has, in many instances, resulted in our behaving in ways not unlike those we are supposed to be opposing and as such, has lost us our moral imperative.





Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/01/2008 at 04:33
Gomer View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: March/25/2008
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 5

Toys?  Playing at Mach 3?  Sorry, but none of these machines are toys.  They are all designed one way or the other to help ensure the swift and efficient death of our enemies.  Even a lowly 45 year old KC-135 provides vital service to the bomb-droppers...  The whole purpose of all of those aircraft is to put warheads on foreheads without getting our guys killed.  You can worry about your car, house, and another set of sneaks for your kids... I'm worried about all that AND killing our enemies.  Take your short-sighted attitudes and go somewhere else...  Or maybe realize that the good ol' US of A has ENEMIES in this world and will continue to have enemies.  These enemies are rapidly developing the ability to hold our military forces at risk... when they can do that, we cease to have an asymetrical advantage and then we have to worry about big wars again.  As long as we have the absolute advantage in weapons, weapon systems and tactics... you are then free to worry only about your car, house and a new pair of golf shoes... or a tenth scope to put on your new rifle.  When we lose our advantage, then you will have to worry about whether or not your drafted son or daughter will come home in a body bag.  Better to be prepared to defeat any and all enemies across all spectrums of warfare than to worry about losing the fight and our nation.

 
gomer
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/01/2008 at 16:07
BeltFed View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: February/12/2008
Location: Ky
Status: Offline
Points: 16102
When Pres. Bill Clinton sent troops to Bosnia I did not agree with that action because it was in the European neighbohood and was no threat to our security, BUT I supported our troops and I wanted them to have the best equipment. We still have troops in Bosnia.
When we invaded Iraq, it was because the threat of terrorist being given WMDs by Saddam was to great and he was not obeying the cease fire from Gulf war 1. The WMDs had already been moved to Syria as reported by high ranking officers in the Iraqi army. as for the war on terror, Iran is the leading exporter of terrorism; and right now they are flanked on the east and west by U.S. Forces in Iraq and Afhanistan and on the south by the U.S. Navy in the Presian Gulf.
If we (the U.S.) can bring peace, freedom, and prosperity to Iraq and Afganistan then maybe that will do more to win the war on terror than dropping warheads on foreheads. If not then maybe we can save wear and tear on our equipment by operating out of bases close to the terrorist instead of having to fly half way around the world.
By the way I was not keen on this war either, but since we're there we may as well take advantage of it. Better to have Bin Ladden visit us in Bagdad than the Bronx.
Thats my.02
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/01/2008 at 17:10
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Online
Points: 14321
lucznik, I like you and I think you add a lot to this forum, but I believe we'll just have to agree to disagree here.  I neither have the patience nor the finger dexterity to type out a thorough response that addresses each and every one of your points, plus we're on the verge of violating OT rule #4 that states "No religious discussions or politics unless it relates to guns, optics, and or shooting" anyway.  Suffice it to say, I believe our action in Iraq was vital to our country's interest and has a direct, completely relevant connection to our nations war on terror.  I said the argument about Iraq not being involved in 9/11 is a strawman argument, because that was never a reason for invading Iraq in the first place, nor has ANY administration official EVER made such a claim.  Saddam was indeed supporting, harboring, financing, and training terrorists, not to mention had violated the terms of the Gulf War cease-fire, which gave us a legal obligation to act.  He was a destabilizing force in the already volatile Middle East.  This war is nothing but a continuation of the first Gulf War, and is but one battle front in the ongoing war on terror.  We aren't fighting against states and organized militaries; we are fighting against radical Islamic terrorist groups, and therefore, we must take the fight to them wherever they are or they will take the fight to us.  We didn't choose this fight; they declared war on us long ago, and pretending they aren't waging war against us is foolish and dangerous.  The only way to meet this threat is to kick their asses; killing as many of them as possible before they kill us.  War is ugly, but sometimes vitally necessary, REGARDLESS OF COST!!!!!!!!!
 
Did you read the link I provided at the end of my last post?
 
I also believe discussions of the pros vs. cons of invading Iraq have absolutely no relevance to the thread topic which is simply that we need to be replacing aged military equipment.
 
It's very simple:
1.  Advanced, cutting-edge weapons systems, be it combat aircraft, tanks, missiles, whatever, are all essential to the defense of our country and the cause of liberty.  We cannot afford to NOT use the latest, best technology available.
2.  No machine has an unlimited service life, and at some point, it is more cost effective to replace worn-out equipment than it is to continually maintain obsolete equipment.
3.  Much of the current generation of aircraft in our inventory has exceeded their service lives and are in need of replacement.
4.  Aircraft like the F15 are no longer in production and have been replaced by even more lethal, more capable aircraft in the F22 and F35. 
5.  Though unit cost may be greater, using more lethal, more capable aircraft is actually less costly, because fewer units are required to do the same job.  This is supported by the fact that at the most recent Red Flag aerial combat training simulation outside Nellis AFB, the F22 dominated, with a single F22 "killing" on average 8 F15's each.  So, far fewer F22's will be needed to do the same job of our aging F15 fleet, which makes it a more economical alternative.  Looking only at the unit cost of any weapon system without taking into consideration the capabilities of that weapon system is very short-sighted.
6.  Waiting for our enemies to catch up and develop weapons systems to challenge ours is equally foolish and short-sighted.
7.  The F22 is already in service in a fully operational squadron based at Langley AFB, VA.
8.  The more time spent working on a piece of equipment, the less time that equipment will be mission ready, and the more units will be required to carry out any given military operation.
9.  It is irresponsible to unnecessarily endanger our servicemen and women by expecting them to use worn-out, potentially unsafe equipment when there are better alternatives readily available.  Anything less than the very best equipment, training, and tactics available results in lost American lives.  Period.
 
 
BTW, a minor point... no current aircraft in our inventory is capable of Mach 3.  The F15 has a top speed of Mach 2.5 - 2.8.
 
I find the "playing at Mach 3+" statement a little offensive, and it demonstrates a lack of understanding and/or appreciation for the role of our pilots.  They don't strap themselves to multi-million dollar high performance aircraft for the purpose of taking useless, expensive joy rides.  They must train constantly to be ready to meet and defeat any threat, anytime, anywhere, which is vital to our nation's security and to minimize the loss of American lives. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/01/2008 at 18:36
cyborg View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar
God of Wind

Joined: August/24/2007
Location: North Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 12082
I'm gonna say this, our men and women are serving this Country, not the sitting President, or current Congress. They are serving us, and they deserve the best that can be given to them. ANYONE that would deny them any tool that would allow them to do their job better and more safely, DOES NOT deserve the very security that they help provide, and I DON'T CARE IF THIS PISSES ANYONE OFF, IT IS FACT.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/01/2008 at 20:11
BeltFed View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar

Joined: February/12/2008
Location: Ky
Status: Offline
Points: 16102
I appreciate the debate but we are getting close to violating the rules, and to that I apologize. I understand lucznik point and appreciate it but I just respectfully disagree. Enough about that.
Back to the original topic. RifleDude has already made my points, but I have to add this. A friend of mine flew F-16s at Nellis in the aggressor squadron and loved it because he got to fly more. He told me on average pilots only got a couple of hours flight time a month, and that was not enough to stay current for war fighting. I didn't appreciate this until I became a stupid "er a" student pilot and realized flying is a skill that has to be constantly practiced to retain the skill. Also if you look at the latest generation of Russian fighters they are equall to and even better than our F-15s,16s, and 18s. Their fighters are new, and they will sell to anybody. Ours are aged with 25+ years of hard use. It is time to re-equip.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/02/2008 at 06:25
cyborg View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar
God of Wind

Joined: August/24/2007
Location: North Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 12082
Sorry guys this isn't a political discussion as it pertains to our Military, and not to any political party, there are other threads that are far more in violation than this one.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/02/2008 at 18:01
martin3175 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: January/19/2005
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Points: 3773

These men and women in uniform have VOLUNTEERED to be in the military. They are professionals and deserve the best tools of the trade that can be had !!! I agree that the "playing" statement was /is offensive to those that serve. I am not advocating purchasing weapons systems on a whim ,whether or not it is our place  to be in Iraq,  Afganistan, or anywhere else for that fact  but given the age and condition of alot of what the soldiers are relying on for their LIVES, it's time to update to weapons systems younger than the soldier using them.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/02/2008 at 19:27
lucznik View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/27/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1436
rifledude, I think we can amicably agree to disagree here.

However, I feel to make three simple points here - mostly for the rest...

1.  We are right now, already spending over 10 BILLION dollars EVERY MONTH just in our "war" efforts in Iraq.  This has amounted to an overall cost of over a half a TRILLION dollars - all of which is deficit spending. Deserving has nothing to do with it.  You try run your household with such financial practices.  You'll be bankrupt before the month is out.

My original question still stands; if you think these men and women deserve the things you want to give them, and taking into consideration our nation's current financial state as well as the amount of money already being spent on military operations, how are you going to pay for it?

2.  EVERY single member of the military with whom I have ever been acquainted from doctors, to pilots, to grunts routinely refers to their equipment as their "toys" and also to the time they spend with such toys as their "play time."  So, fain being "offended" if you will, but you are being a hypocrite.

3. Volunteering for something by definition requires that you not be recompensed for your efforts other than to receive reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses.  As there are no unpaid members of the military, they are not volunteers.  They chose their profession and receive compensation (including salaries, health care coverage, life insurance, educational assistance, housing, meals, etc.) for their service.  Whether or not they are paid sufficient for the the jobs required of them is a different argument - one that many underpaid public servants (like school teachers, police officers, firemen, and the like) would also have claim to.


Edited by lucznik - April/02/2008 at 19:29
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/02/2008 at 20:36
martin3175 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar

Joined: January/19/2005
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Points: 3773
Sure, they chose their profession --so I concede volunteer is  by definition an incorrect term ,,but I was referring to a time when it wasn't a choice for many . Hypocrite ???come on -- stop.  These folks  need better just to simply do their jobs as safely as it can be done, and it is time to re equip alot of the current systems. No doubt domestic financial issues are also in need of attention( desperately so in many areas) , but neglecting our fighting forces isn't right either. I am not trying to say that I am for or against the political process that put our troops in harms way overseas, I meant to point out that it is taking its toll on equipment not meant to last as long as it has. How we come by figuring out the critical funding of such (and which) programs enters into a whole new complex dissertation beyond what I intended here.

Edited by martin3175 - April/02/2008 at 21:17
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/02/2008 at 22:08
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Online
Points: 14321
Originally posted by lucznik lucznik wrote:

1.  We are right now, already spending over 10 BILLION dollars EVERY MONTH just in our "war" efforts in Iraq.  This has amounted to an overall cost of over a half a TRILLION dollars - all of which is deficit spending. Deserving has nothing to do with it.  You try run your household with such financial practices.  You'll be bankrupt before the month is out.

My original question still stands; if you think these men and women deserve the things you want to give them, and taking into consideration our nation's current financial state as well as the amount of money already being spent on military operations, how are you going to pay for it?
 
Simple... cut the useless gov't spending on the myriad of entitlement programs and pork barrel spending.  The military is the very last place where I want to cut spending.  Maintaining the military is the primary responsibility of the Fed. gov't and is the cornerstone of maintaining our liberty! 
 
You and I differ on our views of the war, so I won't delve into that further, but for a just war that is essential to our survival -- and I believe the war on islamofascism to be exactly that -- there is NO price that is too steep to pay, deficit spending or not!  Using the household analogy, if I thought my family's safety was threatened, there is absolutely NO price I wouldn't pay, even if I had to put myself into bankruptcy!  WWII cost this country far more, FAR MORE than this war in inflation adjusted dollars, so much so that the gov't was selling war bonds to help pay for it.  But, protecting liberty was worth every penny, and I think this war is every bit as critical to our nation as WWII was, maybe even more so!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/02/2008 at 22:28
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Online
Points: 14321
Originally posted by lucznik lucznik wrote:

My original question still stands; if you think these men and women deserve the things you want to give them, and taking into consideration our nation's current financial state as well as the amount of money already being spent on military operations, how are you going to pay for it?
 
One other thing -- we are already paying for it right now, and have no choice but to pay for it, whether we are at war or not.  The military cannot function without jets, tanks, missiles, guns, etc.  It ceases to be a functioning military without those things.  Our weapons systems get worn out whether we use them in war or not, because their use is required for training operations.  We can either use old equipment that requires excessive maintenance and is less effective than currently available technology allows, or we can replace the old equipment with new equipment that actually costs us LESS.  It is actually LESS EXPENSIVE to upgrade our older, less capable, more maintenance intensive military assets to the new, state of the art equipment, both in lost lives and actual dollars spent because we can do more with fewer assets!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/02/2008 at 23:22
lucznik View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/27/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1436
Originally posted by RifleDude RifleDude wrote:

WWII cost this country far more, FAR MORE than this war in inflation adjusted dollars, so much so that the gov't was selling war bonds to help pay for it. 


WWII (or WWI for that matter) was so different in scale, dynamics, purpose, etc. that it's difficult to make reasonable comparisons between that conflict and what we are doing with our military forces today.  Though, it does seem reasonable to point out that many of our military's accomplishments in both the European and Pacific theaters were realized despite desperate shortages of material, weapons, supplies, proper clothing, etc.  That certainly is not the ideal but it does at least suggest that there is more to the equation than simply good gear.

You do make an interesting point with the war bonds issue.  That, at the very least, is an idea for acquiring funding - which is more than the others have offered.

I doubt it would work.  But, at least it's an idea, which is a start.


Edited by lucznik - April/02/2008 at 23:26
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/02/2008 at 23:37
lucznik View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/27/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1436
Originally posted by RifleDude RifleDude wrote:

It is actually LESS EXPENSIVE to upgrade our older, less capable, more maintenance intensive military assets to the new, state of the art equipment, both in lost lives and actual dollars spent because we can do more with fewer assets!


You've made this assertion a couple of times now and it might be interesting (though probably logistically impossible) to look at hard figures to see just how much each option really does or does not cost. My guess is that it we would quickly find that your supposition is a bit too simplistic.

However, if the equation is as simple as you suggest, then the obvious corollary questions become:
1. Why does the military choose to waste what finances they do have on repairing equipment, if buying new is so much cheaper to acquire and would result in greater overall capacity?
and
2. If the Armed Forces are proving to be so irresponsible as to waste their present funding on more expensive, less capable equipment when lower cost, higher performance, state-of-the-art options are available, how does giving them more funding solve that problem?



Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/03/2008 at 06:57
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Online
Points: 14321
Originally posted by lucznik lucznik wrote:

However, if the equation is as simple as you suggest, then the obvious corollary questions become:
1. Why does the military choose to waste what finances they do have on repairing equipment, if buying new is so much cheaper to acquire and would result in greater overall capacity?
and
2. If the Armed Forces are proving to be so irresponsible as to waste their present funding on more expensive, less capable equipment when lower cost, higher performance, state-of-the-art options are available, how does giving them more funding solve that problem?
 
Because Congress and Congress alone is responsible for appropriating funds for military equipment.  The DOD then approves military contracts based on what funding they receive.  The rank and file military has to make do with what they have and what they are given from Washington.  They don't have a choice in deciding what weapons systems they will use.  They don't have the option of "wasting their present funding" because they aren't the ones establishing the budget and writing the checks.
 
 
BTW -- here's what some of the new weapons systems actually cost.  As you can see, we have already been paying for the equipment.
 


Edited by RifleDude - April/03/2008 at 07:00
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: April/03/2008 at 06:59
cyborg View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar
God of Wind

Joined: August/24/2007
Location: North Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 12082
Lucznik, How does holding our Military ransom over some gripe you have with to what ends they are used solve anything? The fact is the Military will be used by the President and the Congress as it is seen fit for the security of the Country and it's people whether they are here or abroad. To use the funding of one of the few Constitutionally mandated spending programs as a carrot to make the mule do as you want leaves this Country at risk. Your frustration is understood, I disagree with it, but I do understand it.
Quite simply we spend far too much on social programs and public funding of counseling, that it's scary and turning out far too many panty waste people. This money could go a long way towards fixing our military's woes. It would also make for more tithing to churches and they would once again fill the role that the GOVCO now fills with these ill gotten gains programs. You have to look at the big picture friend, and you are wanting to hold those that serve ransom. This is not fair to them, and they do deserve better. 
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  1 2 3>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "They deserve better !"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Votex 6-24 pst good bad ugly porkchop401 Tactical Scopes 5
Good Eye Box and Eye Relief Options ? envy500 Rifle Scopes 18
FujiFilm Binocs any good? bfallona Binoculars 3
A These BISLEY Binoculars any good? foursquare Binoculars 4
Looking for good 8x32 compacts... burfurd Binoculars 9
Vortex Razor HD 12x50 good deal? calhounio Binoculars 4
Good optics for someone partially color blind? cropslx Rifle Scopes 6
Good low-light Hunting Scope? luke_duke Rifle Scopes 34
Millet 6x25x56.....good LR shooting scopes? westerbk Rifle Scopes 32
Pretty and pretty darn good shot. Sgt. D Shooting 4


This page was generated in 0.359 seconds.