Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by UncommonSense 9 years, 9 months ago
    "Do More With Less" Part II. ~ Been there, done that. But I'm not worried, there will be another war to fix this in time. (SIGH)

    The more things change, the more they stay the same.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by fivedollargold 9 years, 9 months ago
    As a former Air Force officer, $5Au has little confidence in current Air Force senior leadership. One example, their absurd attempts to retire the A-10, a plane perfectly suited for close air support in battling ISIS. The Air Force claims it is to expensive to operate. They want to buy more F-22's with which to fill this role. The F-22 is a hell of a weapon. It is also incredibly expensive and designed primarily as an air superiority fighter. Unlike the armored A-10, it is vulnerable to small arms fire at low altitude. Only the intervention of key Congressional leaders has prevented the Air Force for making a grievous error.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by UncommonSense 9 years, 9 months ago
      I totally concur. Using the F-22 for close air support is akin to using a Lamborghini for taxi service. ~ ASININE. Only the senior leadership would come up with such a stupid idea.

      The most dumbest ideas are often made by people farthest away from the problem.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by Ranter 9 years, 8 months ago
    Obama is effectively disarming America. I suppose he feels that if we are too weak to fight a war, we won't have to.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 8 months ago
      perfect inverse logic -- if I can't fight, the enemy
      won't attack. . . I guess it's the kind of logic which
      comes from "if I have no money, no one can steal
      from me."

      I was in one fist-fight, as a kid, and I chose not to
      fight back. . . just to see what would happen. . the
      bully found me to be such an anomaly that there
      was no fun in it, so he left.

      maybe that's the logic. . but I would not bet the
      farm on it.

      peace through strength is my current motto, and
      we are getting into real trouble by abandoning
      that logic. -- j

      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 9 months ago
    Even at 26% of what it was in the 1990's, the USAF is more than able to handle whatever would need to be handled. As much as I like military personnel and vets, if a president must use force (and it is used far more often than necessary), then you bomb the enemy to hell quickly and be done with it. A few days is enough.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 9 months ago
      except that *some* presidents do not have the will
      to fight. . no matter how evil the enemy. -- j

      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 9 months ago
        President Zero is one such president, but fighting wars is done far too easily. The Canadians get involved rarely in wars, but do so against clear enemies. Their foreign policy regarding wars is probably close to what most countries' proclivities to war should be.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 9 years, 9 months ago
    p.s. my mistake in the title -- should be 1990s, not 1990's;;;
    it was late and I was tired.

    p.p.s. 47 divided by 188 is 0.2606,,, 26 percent

    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo