What is the pilot going to do if his plane gets hacked? - Crash into the ground. That is not a valid reason for keeping pilots in the airplane. In addition, you are ignoring the cost benefit analysis Pilots in fighter/bombers are absurd they increase the cost by a factor of at least 100 and decrease the performance by at least a factor 3.

Women in the military is, all together, a horrible idea! At the very least, women in combat roles, or any role where they are on the front lines, or any place where they are likely to engage in combat. See my posting above on women in the military.

Don't get me wrong, I am professional with the ladies, or women, I've worked with and am subordinate to. I do not disagree that some women can be equal to the task, but it would be HORRIBLE to force ALL women to sign up and be eligible for the draft! Most women are not built for combat!

Interestingly enough, the reason why we have so many food programs in this country was to ensure that we had enough strapping and healthy young men to fight wars! When we fought the Vietnamese and they looked at the bodies of the American soldiers they had killed, they were surprised at how big our people were!

The problem is, "progressives", so called, have been in charge of the school system in a lot of ways demeaning or down playing the exceptionalism of this country. Why are we surprised then that we have a nation of wimps that more often than not grab a camera instead of a gun when they see a crime unfolding?

As for the draft itself, is again, a horrible idea! Only about 1 or 2% of the population is really bent on killing their fellow man (for better or worse). Only about 1 to 3% of the population ever serves in the military. With an all volunteer military, you are likely to catch those willing to fight and kill (if the need arises) for their country! Those who are not willing to fight, to kill, or to die for their country, do not belong in the military!

We already have troubles as it is with liberals picking up guns and going on killing sprees! (All these shooting sprees, if they are not inspired by Islam, are nut job democrats!) Why give them more training on killing people?

Like it or not, most of the war fighters that have served (voluntarily) in the military have been conservatives or Republicans!

I think we should ALWAYS keep pilots in the pilot's seat whenever possible!

What happens when a drone system gets hacked by the enemy and the drone is used against us? An autonomous drone, which is where the military is heading, would be a nightmare! Pilots, for the better or for the worst, can make moral decisions, like choosing not to hit a target because it's too close to a religious building! A mindless drone wouldn't care!

"Not needing" a piloted fighter is NOT looking at the bigger broader picture! Just because we have the technology does NOT mean we should automatically use it! Should we be using depleted uranium shells? Should we be using MOABS or should we be using tactical nukes?

Actually I think women in combat are is a horrible idea!

There is a psychology to fighting a war, and men have a certain way of thinking separate from that of women. The Israelis found out the hard way that when women are introduced as war fighters, wars became even MORE brutal than they already are! Men are ingrained to protect women, when "their women" get injured or killed, the Israeli soldiers would lose their minds!

Women in a war zone A: Have to worry about getting raped, and not necessarily just by the enemy... and B: Have to worry about getting pregnant! Both are a problem in the modern era! When I was in Kuwait, an incoming unit that was reliving a unit that was already there came into theater with both STDs and like half of the females in the unit had positive results for being pregnant!

The problem is people again want to be politically correct rather than confront warfare on the terms of what true reality is! Humanism and "progressivism" minded people try to fight wars using idealism and social engineering, rather than just going with what has worked for thousands of years! Men do the fighting, women do the worrying and keep the home fires lit!

Some objective data on US Wars:
WWI- Wilson (D)- 116k
WWII- Roosevelt (D)- 405k
Korea- Truman (D)- 36k
Vietnam- Johnson (Kennedy) (D)- 59k
About 620K- price of appeasement
Obama/Dems starting in 2016?


(R’s)- (I’m counting T Roosevelt as a (R) Phillipines, Guatamala/Honduras, Panama, Beruit, Grenada, Dominican, Iraq 1 and 2 and a few others

About 14k-price of pre-emptive strategy

+1

+1

You find no argument from me. Depends on the agency though, defense, yes. Comes down to resources to perform though, something difficult for smaller businesses as well as past performance credentials on their own.

I work in Solutions/BD for a larger company, we do a lot for the Dept of Energy (hydro), we have to partner on everything but the prime has to do 51% of the work,no they really do. Normally it's one cycle though, too big the second time so we find a new partner.

I understand the thought, but it doesn't work in practice, once they are too big they usually struggle to find business to replace that govie customer. We were a $100 million company before we did business with the government so it doesn't affect us much, maybe 25% of our revenue.

We have been transitioning from fed to local and education for the same reason though, no set asides.

"Are you offering you explanation of the world as a justification for the U.S. to do the same?"

No. I'm just observing that the world itself isn't exactly rainbows and unicorns. I would also point out that there is a difference between inciting war and getting pulled into a war as a result of alliances and allegiances. Bellicosity results in the instigation of conflict; many of the wars we have been involved in have been to protect interests and allies. Now I'm not trying to justify every involvement in conflict we've been associated with, but I do point out that to state that the United States has historically been instigating wars isn't justified IMHO. In the last twenty years or so? Perhaps one can make a stronger case for that.

And I agree with George Washington. He was probably the best President we have ever had.

Your argument roughly parallels the NFL owners arguments as to why cities should spend billions buying them new stadiums - which does not work out as they forecast.

I am familiar with all the preferences given to special groups in federal contracts - I was a contracting officer for the USAF during a large part of my 25 years of service. In reality those small business/minority preferences make more money for the major defense contractors then they do for the 'disadvantaged' businesses they are supposed to help. For every gimmick the govmt dreams up, somebody figures a way to play it to his advantage.

I agree that the Joint Strike Fighter is made of pieces from just about every state (maybe even every state) and that is to buy votes. You local congressman can tell his constituents that HE brought all those good jobs to the district.

What needs to be considered is that if those bright people were not employed building weapons, what would they be building? I mean no sarcasm here - defense contractors employ a lot of highly skilled and intelligent people. Defense contractors like govmt work because profits are guaranteed! If they were in a competitive market they might have to fight for profits. In my opinion a lot of defense money is wasted and the opportunity cost of all the things not being done because efforts are being expended on bombs instead of more useful things is just plain tragic.

I am confused. Are you offering you explanation of the world as a justification for the U.S. to do the same? President Washington knew of the bellicose history when he admonished, in his farewell address, that the U.S. should trade with all and become involved with the internal politics of none. Perhaps, had we followed that advice, we would not have the history of constant war since the founding.

Why do you find it necessary to resort to name calling? You have not presented anything worth rebutting. Go somewhere else and spew your hate. Gross, infantile words are used by those who cannot express themselves.

FNA ??

I should note that I meant, Stockman is correct again. ;^)

Relax, BuddyL. While this is a place for open discussion, we must keep it civil and rational discussion. Personal insults are not a form of civil, rational discussion.
First, I didn't say "America has been stealing for centuries." I said this was an excuse to wage war that had been used for centuries to wage war, murder innocent people, and steal resources.
The neocons are one group in the US that are using the excuse to wage war and kill innocent people. The current administration has continued using the excuse as well. Neither represents the best interests of the American people.

Lol. Both probably apply in my case. ;)

blarman, you are so right, er, correct.