Pentagon Approves $11 Billion Contract For Useless Weapons System
Pentagon Approves $11 Billion Contract For Useless Weapons System
In an effort to combat Al Qaeda’s non-existent fleet of stealth fighter jets, the Air Force, following an endorsement by the taxpayer-funded Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), approved a new three-year, $11 billion contract for the F-22.
The F-22 is arguably the Pentagon’s most useless weapon system. Not only is it the world’s most expensive fighter jet, but it was conceived in 1985 to fight a Soviet fighter jet that was never built. As wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo show, U.S. air superiority is not in doubt. So it is perplexing that the independent Institute for Defense Analyses would recommend that the Pentagon continue purchasing a jet that has been plagued by technical problems and cost overruns.
But it turns out that IDA is not so “independent†after all. The Washington Post reported today:
The endorsement came from the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), a federally financed research center whose president, Dennis C. Blair, is a member of the board of a subcontractor for the F-22 Raptor fighter program, EDO Corp. EDO developed a missile launcher for the F-22 and has held contracts worth at least $38 million that are part of the program, according to its news releases.
Opposition to the F-22 is bipartisan. In the summer of 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld moved to cancel the plane, backing off only when Secretary of the Air Force James Roche threatened to resign. In a recent piece in Foreign Affairs, conservative Fred Kagan pointed out that a single F-22 could pay for 3,000 additional American troops. As the military struggles to afford the costs of repairing and replacing equipment damaged in Iraq, choosing to waste $11 billion on an unnecessary Cold War relic is an outrage.
– Max Bergmann
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
The amount of $ spent on weapons really is something to be ashamed of.
July 25th, 2006 at 2:54 pmwell its really the chinese that are funding this through purchasing our treasury bonds. the u.s. govt has no money for this stuff…..
July 25th, 2006 at 2:56 pmEisenhower called it “The military industrial complex” … it is one thing to build weapons that might be needed… but the F-22 is being replaced anyway… this is just more palm rubbing by contactors who turn around and use some of that money to bribe congress.
July 25th, 2006 at 2:57 pmThe author of this story is completely off base and does not understand the realities of warfare or of the world situation. Just because we currently possess a fleet of fighters that can gaurantee air superiority doesn’t mean that if we sit around and wait for future enemies to develop better fleets we will remain secure. China, a strategic competitor, is advancing its own fighter production and research efforts at breakneck pace. If we don’t go through with the Raptor project in greater numbers, not less, we will lose the lead in air superiority. All of the Air Force’s current arsenal of fighters is also aging rapidly and will need replacement. If we buy as many Raptors (over 1,000) as first planned, instead of the 100+ that are planned now the economies of scale mean that 1000% more would only cost 50% more to the taxpayer. What the authors of this story are not mentioning is that it is an extremely cost effective system if it is built in quantity, and the $15 billion included R&D funds already spent, most of that number is not future production costs. I am a liberal and highly critical of corruption in the Pentagon. While this fighter has been the victim of the usual corrupt aquisition process, the most wasteful part is already in the past, and canceling a fighter at this stage would be both criminal and endangering the future ability of America to exert influence and maintain its national security. Liberal anti-corruption activists need to understand the issue before they post outrageous stories about it, and they need to understand what they’ve been saying for years: you cannot win a war on an -ism, so you need to stop structuring your military might around an unquantifiable threat. Nation states are the thing that can damame a country, not terrorism.
July 25th, 2006 at 2:58 pmWhy is it that stories of waste and foolishness like this coming from the Bush Administration no longer shock or surprise me?? I cant even get angry any longer. I just look at the calendar and realize that 3 days from today someone with brains will be in the White House and he will have appointed someone with brains to run the Pentagon and shit like this will be a long ago survived nightmare.
July 25th, 2006 at 2:59 pm3 YEARS not days….guess that was wishful thinking?
July 25th, 2006 at 3:00 pm“In an effort to combat Al Qaeda’s non-existent fleet of stealth fighter jets” - Is this site really “thinking progress”? Such sarcasm and small-mindedness get the nation and your agenda nowhere. There a quite a few other potential threats: China, Iran, Chavez and anyone else willing to spend money to hurt us. We need to do our best to best protect our troops who are doing their best to protect us. In this current state of the world we cannot not forsee who might become an aggressor. Please do “think progress”…let’s work together.
July 25th, 2006 at 3:01 pmThank you Daniel, this story left me with a feeling of disgust for a site I normally regard very highly, I hope you issue a retraction for this completely irresponsible story.
July 25th, 2006 at 3:04 pmDo they float in a hurricaine?
July 25th, 2006 at 3:05 pmYou should not forget that Rumsfeldt controls about 60-70% of the country’s total budget and where else do you think he will spend it? Some place that gets him and the donors of the Republican party a bunch of profit — the heck with the needs of the American people.
July 25th, 2006 at 3:07 pm#7
Look past the talking point of liberals being soft on defense and read what the artcile and you will see no mention of leaving the US unprepared or unready for the threats that face us. It talks about the waste and corruption that surrounds this particular weapons system.
Oh yeah how did Chavez make that list of threats? We need the F-22s to stop the threat the Venezuelean Air Force? Is every conservative a wet hairless chiahuahua on an ice rink?
July 25th, 2006 at 3:08 pm#4 ….future ability of America to exert influence and maintain its national security.
fool. look out over the landscape of the world and you can tell this strategy is really working! bring on more “shock & awe” to impress those who havent been bombed yet by american armaments.
July 25th, 2006 at 3:10 pmDuck walk little people America is a Military Country,Military Might is more important than Health Care,education, jobs, Global Warming ,gee with all the wars happening G.Warming is gonna get hotter and hotter its going to get harder to breathe as the trees and plants will die off.
July 25th, 2006 at 3:11 pmBillions in oil profits can get Chavez anything he wants, it is the potential that he is a threat not that he is now and it is the threat to our airmen, he will never be a threat to the US. We want our soldiers to have the best equipment we can give them.
July 25th, 2006 at 3:12 pmAnd dlet, my complaint was with the first sentence, waste of course is rampant everywhere, by why the needless lie about Al Qaeda?
July 25th, 2006 at 3:14 pmIn response to comment #4 by Zach Klein - It is true the U.S. needs to prepare for the next generation of threats - but this logic can be used to justify anything and everything. I would point out that we already have 100 F-22s that could be deployed against China. In the Center’s own QDR, available at http://www.americanprogress.org/qdr we make the case for the F-35 Joint-Strike fighter, which is both more cost-effective and a more useful aircraft and will ensure that the U.S. maintains its air supremecy. Governing is fundamentally about making choices, while the F-22 has some advantages it is simply not worth cost and I would argue does not effectively confront the realistic threats facing the U.S.
July 25th, 2006 at 3:18 pm#14
July 25th, 2006 at 3:18 pmExactly the point that is being made. Get the best equipment to the armed forces. So you are gazing into the future and come up with Chavez as a threat. Oooohmmmm. I see..I see Venezuela making huge profits from the high cost of oil that they have no need to bother with other county’s internal politics and if left alone will be stable and benign. oohhmmmm. Why Daniel that does work. See I just saw the future too and it looks all right. Should have thought of that before.
#15
July 25th, 2006 at 3:21 pmSarcasm does get the point across as many posts here and others verify. No reason to get so bent on it though. I mean in reality Al Queda doesn’t have an air force.
so who’s making money on this one?
July 25th, 2006 at 3:22 pmfunny how “follow the money” hasn’t changed as the only motivation for our politicians
one might point out this “weapon” system does not function as it was claimed to have, and that this is a widely known boondoggle. One smells the protestation of someone working to make big bucks on war toys?
July 25th, 2006 at 3:26 pmthe idea that anyone other country is spending the kind of money (funny money though it may be) for such projects is absurd, and yet we have to compete with that unknown enemy. one of the complainants sounds as though they need to wear depends to counter their own fear factor. or perhaps they work for the gubment propaganda office?
can’t fund decent helmets, body armour, vehicle armour but by damn we’ll fund a useless jet. i’m glad when the soldiers bitch about safety our government seems to listen, sorry pricks.
July 25th, 2006 at 3:27 pmWe need to end the ability of our military and arms industry to be used covertly against innocent civilians. We need to break up the unholy trinity of what Eisenhower dubbed the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex. (He originally included “congressional†in his farewell notes, but in a moment of political weakness struck the word so as not to wound the good relationship he had established between the presidency and congress). The Military exists to fight wars, and has created a massive subculture of violence among our youngest, brightest (but most economically disadvantaged) kids. The arms industry generates enormous wealth profiting from the business of making war, and it is in the best interest of their corporations that the U.S. military remain in a permanent state of war. The U.S. Congress, increasingly composed of the former or future captains of industry and captains of the military, more often represents the interests of the military and arms industry, which speak very loudly to them through their well-funded lobbyists.
The individual U.S. voter has no lobbyists speaking for her, or him. The voice of the voter at election time is moot when the only choices for election or re-election are the same gallery of puppets of Big Business. We need a third party, one which stands for a choice few key goals, and will never back down from them:
1. The end of corporate lobbying.
July 25th, 2006 at 3:27 pm2. The free and equal use of the public airwaves by all candidates, including primetime cable TV broadcasts.
3. Fraud-free election procedures: ban electronic voting; take the process out of the hands of the secretary of state of individual States, and put elections in the hands of a non-partisan federal commission.
4. Abolish the legal personhood of corporations, ending their perversion of the 14th amendment and their stranglehold on the free market.
5. A legally binding committment to bring all industrial and governmental entities into compliance with environmentally sustainable practices, including a redirection of the efforts of military research and development agencies such as NASA into programs such as that of apolloalliance.org
So here we go again. Garbage to the right of me! Garbage to the left of me. Bull…. all over me. I am drowning in it. And guess what. When one is living in a kingdom, one simply goes about his or her job and keeps their mouths shut. You’re wasting energy and god knows that we hyave to conserve that!
July 25th, 2006 at 3:27 pmThese pigs will pass anything that his highness wants and this will continue cause there is no opposition.None.
billjpa
$11 billion would be a nice start to funding alternative fuel research, but boys must have their toys. Look at it this way; it’s only about a month’s worth of expenses for Iraq.
July 25th, 2006 at 3:33 pmChina, a strategic competitor, is advancing its own fighter production and research efforts at breakneck pace.
Comment by Zach Klein — July 25, 2006 @ 2:58 pm
To all those who are now pointing at China as the next big threat:
The ongoing modernization of the Chinese military poses less of a threat to the United States than recent studies by the Pentagon and a congressionally mandated commission have posited. Both studies exaggerate the strength of China’s military by focusing on the modest improvements of specific sectors rather than the still-antiquated overall state of Chinese forces.(…)
The United States still spends about 10 times what China does on national defense—$400 billion versus roughly $40 billion per year—and is modernizing its forces much faster.
The Cato Institute: Is Chinese Military Modernization a Threat to the United States?
Not even the Cato Institute (no liberal organisation by any stretch of the imagination) buys into the fearmongering.
What China is doing, is bulding an arsenal as a deterrent in case of a US military intervention in the region. Given the US’ track record, such idea is not completey off-base. China is pursuing her own interests in the region, which include complete political re-unification with Taiwan:
“The main purpose of that is not to attack the United States,” Lin [Chong-pin, a former Taiwanese deputy defense minister] said. “The main purpose is to throw a monkey wrench into the decision-making process in Washington, to make the Americans think, and think again, about intervening in Taiwan, and by then the Chinese have moved in.”
China Builds a Smaller, Stronger Military
Remember that it was the fearmongering coming from this administration that got the US in the mess that Iraq has become.
July 25th, 2006 at 3:39 pmThe F-22 is replacing the F-15 which first entered service in the 1970’s. While the F-15 has proven more than capable in the past, many are already past their initial projected service life and at some point we must plan for the future. Russia is exporting aircraft more capable than the F-15. The F-22 gives our Air Force pilots a clear advantage over anything else. I think they should have that advantage. And it is hardly a cold war relic - it is only now entering front-line service.
Also, the F-22 is not being replaced anytime soon. The next fighter, the F-35, is scheduled to replace the F-16, the AV-8 Harrier from the mid-1980’s, and the A-10 (the last one was built in 1984).
I think it would be short-sighted to base a decision about our future needs on only our current conflicts. An F-22’s cost 2-3 times more than an F-15, but they are more than twice as capable in terms of air superiority.
July 25th, 2006 at 3:41 pmThis is part and parcel of an overall pattern of looting the country, just as criminal CEOs looted their companies.
July 25th, 2006 at 3:45 pmThis is a great warplane. Our military is designed to fight and defend against Russia and china. 48 of these planes can take out every enemy plane of either country; effectively giving us air supremacy.
If we hadnt spent 420 billion in Iraq this wouldnt seem so bad
And before the anti war crybabies start with bla bla bla….
this plane replaces the F-16 which is 20 years old. this F-22 is what makes superior to everybody else and we need it.
there will be other things to cut out of the budget,, like the occupation in iraq and tax cuts for the rich and corporate wellfare, and stupid missile defenses that wont work,,,,
but this plane is very very good for us.
July 25th, 2006 at 3:48 pmThe military-industrial complex run amok.
July 25th, 2006 at 3:52 pmthere will be other things to cut out of the budget,, like the occupation in iraq and tax cuts for the rich and corporate wellfare, and stupid missile defenses that wont work,,,,
Comment by Alex
Ok, when?
July 25th, 2006 at 3:56 pmThe problem being overlooked here is the Joint Strike Fighter won’t be ready for service until 2013. The Raptor is ready today, and our Falcons, Eagles and Tomcats were not intended to be in service for forty plus years. Even the Hornet’s been operational since 1982. The Chinese J-10, a joint design with Israel, appears to be a ripoff of the Euro Fighter. If it’s even close, we want the Raptor.
I’m no fan of stupid procurement. But this isn’t the Sergeant York gun and we don’t want to trust our air superiority to seventies and eighties designs until the middle of next decade. The smart thing to do is cancel the Joint Strike Fighter altogether and double the number of Raptors ordered. Not to defend ourselves from Chavez (Give me a break. The Venezuelans couldn’t fight the DC Park Police to standstill), but to insure air superiority into the next decade that we’ve enjoyed the past four decades.
July 25th, 2006 at 4:00 pmComment by Zach Klein
hmmm, the I am a liberal but not really Trolls i see have got a new ‘plan’ Okay. Let’s play
I am a Fiscal Republican and this is outrageous we need troops to fight al qaeda on the ground, we need money for kevlar vests, and we need money to recruit these republican patriots, to recruit this vast network of internet grass roots the right has at it’s disposal.
Come on righties! We don’t need airplanes we need YOU!
July 25th, 2006 at 4:02 pmAl qaeda has not jets, no tanks, no uniformed military, nor a country to call their own, so we need you republicans to join today!
And oh yes please keep working on that tilt rotor failure osprey thing, I as a Fiscal Republican think it’s a good Idea, and it would be ashame to stop the program after we have profited..er spenty so much on it’s development costs, besides we will need it to deploy the college republicans and the freepers in Iran and Lebanon
July 25th, 2006 at 4:04 pmone might point out this “weapon†system does not function as it was claimed to have, and that this is a widely known boondoggle. One smells the protestation of someone working to make big bucks on war toys?
Do you have a citation for this claim? My understanding is the F-22 works pretty much as advertised.
July 25th, 2006 at 4:05 pmConsider 11 billion spent on PR. The F-22 Raptor sounds and looks good. It’s all part of the psychological game. We need to develop a new fighter jet every so often, even if its uneccessary.
July 25th, 2006 at 4:06 pmi think we need bigger box-cutters to counter those used by the 9/11 hi-jackers. That’ll show em!
July 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pmthis plane replaces the F-16 which is 20 years old. this F-22 is what makes superior to everybody else and we need it.
To what blow up civilian power stations and red cross facilities in a foreign, and poor, country? A zillion dollars to blow up a mosque, or a carvan of fleeing civilians, maybe a camel and some tents, some goat farmer, it’s well it’s pretty stupid.
But this is just another excuse for shock and Awe wars, today we need ground troops, republicans join today!
http://www.teambio.org/ 2006/ 07/ government-trolls-our-tax-dollars-at-work/
Last week it was the revelation that the Department of Defense was going to be indexing blogs. Then it was the revelation that Marine recruiters were using My Space to lure people into the military. Now it seems our tax dollars are being used for military personnel to cruise blogs sites and spam the comment section. At least that is what it seems like after we received this comment today:
Greetings; my name is Spc. Patrick Ziegler with U.S. CENTCOM. While it is not my place to get involved in any political debates, I just wanted toinvite your readers to visit our website, http://www.centcom.mil . The CENTCOM website is a good place to get up-to-date news, press releases, video and audio from Iraq, Afghanistan and all other places within the Central Command
July 25th, 2006 at 4:10 pmThe GAO is saying similar things about the F-35 program too - cost overruns, . The F-35 was not designed for air superiority, lacks the advanced radar system, speed, and range of the F-22.
If anything, we should be manufacturing new A-10’s for the current ground wars.
July 25th, 2006 at 4:17 pmI understand that the military needs modern equipment.
However, weapon systems like the failed National Missile Defense program has left a bad taste in our mouth.
July 25th, 2006 at 4:17 pmOkay I have to make this announcement, we will only be accepting the most vile and hate spewing metaphorists and pundit parrots from the riigh wing blathersphere.
Why?
Because you guys want war and here we, republican leaders create a war, and guess what?
Hardly any of the 30 million of the Bush base has joined the fray. My my.
Have you internet grassroots of the 101st keyboard poliferation division decided it’s better to type than to fight?
Oh no no. This will not do.
The next draft, this time will be different,, College Students will NOT be given deferments and they WILL be drafted, school be damned.
Duhbya says SCHOOL has no bearing if you are probably gonna die anyway.
Republicans to the Recruiters!!
July 25th, 2006 at 4:19 pm30 million strong!!
Go go go go!!
Libs and progs want to do everything they can to strip the US until it is defenseless. The F-22 is necessary, because China is developing jets to rival F-15’s, F-16’s and F-18’s, and we always need to stay one step ahead.
July 25th, 2006 at 4:24 pmIt’s been posted here before, and is somewhat dated, but just as pertinent now as then.
http://video.google.com/ videoplay?docid=2397496401234089687&q=cia+secret+government
July 25th, 2006 at 4:24 pmF-15 which first entered service in the 1970’s. While the F-15 has proven more than capable in the past, many are already past their initial projected service life and at some point we must plan for the future. Russia is exporting aircraft more capable than the F-15.
Yeh nevermind the f-16 and the f-18’s that came between them…and all those other things.
Submarines. How many Submarines does al qaeda have?
none actually.
Here, this is a top secret from the freeper site, but they have camel operatives that are trained in scuba technology and underwater demolitions. Terrorist camel warfare can be used to attack our oil infrastructure such as the phallic Hoover-Diana facility in the gulf.
We need you republicans to sign up for the Navy!
==
The F-22 is necessary, because China is developing jets to rival F-15’s, F-16’s and F-18’s, and we always need to stay one step ahead.
Comment by Jason M. Hendle
No Jason we need YOU, China has nukes, remember? Like Russia? You ‘Cold War’ them remember?
Proxy war man!! We need you on the GROUND JASON
July 25th, 2006 at 4:29 pmTEN HUT!!
Besides Jason you can’t fly a jet, so why buy something that freepers can’t even fly?
JOIN THE ARMY!!
July 25th, 2006 at 4:31 pmJason,
Didn’t the article say it was DONALD RUMSFELD who tried to cancel the F-22 program?
July 25th, 2006 at 4:38 pm…and many military families are forced to go to thrift stores,and food banks to shop.
July 25th, 2006 at 4:38 pmThe congress shits gold bricks for our “Federal Reserve” private banks to keep on hauling in the real important stuff. The endless pit of boondogles for the pentagon has no end of friends in congress. The Secret State of America (SSA) outspends all other countries put together on the military. We can’t forget about space superiority and the Rods from God! Add the NSA (CIA), and black ops and the SSA really does know what has happened and how, but that information is sealed up for at least thirty years at a time (even Reagan, Bush I and Clinton covert activities). The SSA is as transparent as a 20′ titanium steel reinforced bunker.
Meanwhile, the neoclowns continue to piss on the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights as there is no place for these pieces of outdated paper when the SSA is in a perpetual state of war. YeeeeeeeHaaaaaaaa, ride that ol’ bomb to oblivion!!
July 25th, 2006 at 4:42 pmHorace Greeley
you crack me up dude….
If the 101st keyboard dvision is broken up and deployed to ground units in Iraq, who will sell the war at home ????
July 25th, 2006 at 4:44 pmNever let it be said that America doesn’t takes care of its big corporate stock holders.
July 25th, 2006 at 4:45 pmHold still people while I trickle down on you. Feel it?… no?… I’m getting older and my stream is getting weaker……. and the prostate thing and all..
Hey Jason,
Ain’t it funny how we(the US) has to borrow money from China so that our war machine can work and it is China that you are so afraid of? It’s a hoot.
July 25th, 2006 at 4:47 pmZach Klein must work for a defense contractor or the Bush Administration. He’s a real salesman for this turkey of an airplane.
July 25th, 2006 at 4:51 pmIndian Sukhoi-30 vs F-16
Indian Sukhoi-30 vs F-15
I guess we could always outsource our air superiority to India, but I would prefer the US maintain its number one ranking in air superiority. The F-22 does that, and no other plane does. That by itself can act as a deterrent. I am not a ‘pro-war’ freeper, but I am a moderate in favor of a strong defense.
July 25th, 2006 at 4:53 pmThis is not the least cost effective weapons system, by far. The star wars SDI is totally worthless and would never be used, even if it could be operational. When it comes to anti-missle defense MAD worked for fifty years and is still working today. Another candidate is the V-22 Osprey. The Marines will never use it for anything a CH-64 couldn’t be used for.
The U.S. does need to develop a new fighter/attack plane - the real question is whether we need two new planes. The Joint Strike Fighter is also coming. I think the Raptor is a better overall plane and as has already been pointed out, it’s unit cost would come way down if it were built in quantity. But that can’t happen with the funds going to the JSF.
July 25th, 2006 at 4:54 pmPolice in Germany are hunting pranksters who have been sticking miniature flag portraits of George W. Bush into piles of dog poo in public parks.
“This has been going on for about a year now, and there must be 2,000 to 3,000 piles of excrement that have been claimed during that time,” said Josef Oettl, parks administrator for Bayreuth.
The series of incidents was originally thought to be some sort of protest against the US-led invasion of Iraq. But then when it continued, it was thought to be a protest against George W. Bush’s campaign for re-election. But it is still going on and the police say they are completely baffled as to who is to blame.
“We have sent out extra patrols to try to catch whoever is doing this in the act,” said police spokesman Reiner Kuechler. “But frankly, we don’t know what we would do if we caught them red-handed.”
Legal experts say there is no law against using feces as a flag stand and the federal constitution is vague on the issue.
Personally, I think it is mighty considerate to provide unwary pedestrians with an obvious visual marker that prevents them from accidentally stepping into dog poo. I wish people were so considerate in NYC, where there is plenty of dog poo to step in.
http://scienceblogs.com/ grrlscientist/ 2006/ 07/ which_one_of_you_is_doing_this.php
July 25th, 2006 at 5:23 pmEver see “Lord of War”, the recent flick with Nicolas Cage about illegal arms dealers? Here’s a quote: “Your government ships more weapons in a day then I do in a year” - Guess who he was talking to?
These high-tech weapons always seem to end up in the hands of US ‘enemies’ after a few years, and that’s because arms dealers want to sell their wares, developed with US tax dollars, to foreign countries - often as part of US foreign policy - and then you have all the ‘illegal diversions’. After this, to stay ’superior’ we must design a new generation of faster sleeker cash hogs for the military, and another round of fat contracts for the industry.
This is all a good argument for a tightly restricted arms industry and a general ban on foreign arms sales. Along these lines, generals should be prohibited from post-service private sector employment - give them a nice pension, instead. This wouldn’t mean the end for the big contractors like Northrup, Lockheed, etc. - just focus on space, satellites, other kinds of engineering programs - they can learn to adapt (well, maybe).
July 25th, 2006 at 5:27 pmSo, because the neocons deeply fear invasions by other countries, we have to spend more in defense than the rest of the world combined? Seems like with that approach, of neglecting education, children in poverty, health care and other critical essentials to fund these massive defense programs, we are ironically defeating ourselves from within…
July 25th, 2006 at 5:28 pmDonny boy did attempt to end the F-22 program. However, it is the Republican benefactor military industrial complex that supplies the leverage to keep these programs going. I understand that China is attempting to develop its aerospace industry. However, I am not aware of any planes in production that would out class our current fighter force. We should keept the F-22 on the burner to replace out dated aircraft or supply a build when we have realistic intelligence of a build up by one of our potential enemies indicating a threat.
We need to do two things in the future:
1. Build to verified threats. Any potential advesary will be developing new aircraft and technology. How close are they and how capable is the technology? We can field the latest technology only to be leap frogged by an enemy that waited until we committed to a new generation aircraft.
2. We need to have a better cost containment program. We spend far too much money on new aircraft. Designs must be frozen at appropriate times. We all too often incorporate the newest technology even though the existing design already outclassed our opponents. Red Flag exewrcises consistently showed US aircraft being ooverwhelmed by less capable but more numerous and easier to maintain aircraft.
We already see the current type thinking in our missile defense system. The system has never really been proven, can be easily leapfrogged (evem by likes of N. Korea), and is fielded with numerous upgrades and essential parts to be added at a later date.
July 25th, 2006 at 5:40 pm#52, Troy,
Being pro-defense is just as bad as being pro-war to libs and proglodites, so careful defending the F-22. In testing the F-22, one or two F-22’s bested several, if not dozens of F-15’s, F-16’s and F-18’s with no losses, so it is clearly valuable. I look forward to letting Israeli’s have a few, so that they can wipe out Iran’s air force without ever being seen.
July 25th, 2006 at 5:43 pmI look forward to letting Israeli’s have a few, so that they can wipe out Iran’s air force without ever being seen.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 25, 2006 @ 5:43 pm
Because, clearly, you believe that violence is the only method available to solve conflicts between two nations… I feel sorry for you. I hope you never breed.
July 25th, 2006 at 5:50 pmAir-superiority is never useless, this will gurantee it that we have it. The F-15 can’t keep up with some of the new systems a multitude of other countries are fielding such at the Grippen, SU-27 Flanker and and upgraded MIG-29’s. Al-Quade is not our only potental enemy, there are others and we need to command the sky.
July 25th, 2006 at 5:52 pmWhat use is the F-22 when then the real, and near, plan is the militarization of space where anyone who doesn’t follow the program gets zapped.
July 25th, 2006 at 6:09 pm..and The new RC fighter drones also make the F-22 a waste of money as they can pull greater G’s than a human and fly longer missions,besides many other bene’s.
F-22 = corp.welfare,a thrown bone ,a pure watse of $, Any of you conformist trolls own stock?I hope so, or you are just complete fools.
Hmmm…wasn’t this the same plane that was reported to have a fairly serious flaw in the heat treating of its titanium airframe? Oh wait, this same airplane is largely manufactured in Gerogia, home to Saxby Chambliss, one of George Bush’s lap dogs on the intel comm. and one of the prime authors of the post 9/11 intelligence overhaul.
Yeah, the F22 is replacing old aircraft, but the F35 is in the pipeline. There’s nothing in the pipeline of China, or any other country that poses a real threat to our current fleet, so why the rush to buy more F22s? Mid-term election 2006.
July 25th, 2006 at 6:18 pmRepublicans give our money in the form of defense corporate welfare to their friends who, in turn, donate it back to re-electing republicans. Why don’t Democrats put a stop to this? They’re all corporate whores now, too.
July 25th, 2006 at 6:51 pmIDA?
July 25th, 2006 at 7:41 pmDoes this satnd for Israel Defense Agency, as in first recipients of a failed weapons system courtesy of American taxpayer, which they will modify and correct all its faults courtesy of Amrerican taxpayer and then bomb innocent women and children fleeing from their homes in Lebanon?
#59, unbelieveable,
What would be the point of breeding if you aren’t strong enough to defend your young - you would offer yours up to your enemies….
July 25th, 2006 at 8:19 pmThe F-22 is a terrible waste of money, but not for reasons mentioned here. Rumsfeld should have stood up to the AF general who threatened to resign and cancelled the F-22, just as he stood up to the Army and Secretary of the Army White in cancelling the $11 billion Crusader project. Despite its pathetically horrible name, the Crusader mobile artillery project also had support among the Army and the multitude of congressional districts (of *both* political parties) across which its production had been irrationally split.
As a former active (currently reserve) Air Force officer who is not a pilot, I can tell you that even though pilots make up a small fraction of actual Air Force personnel, the Air Force is completely and totally run by pilots who somehow do not realize that it is now 2006 and the most error-prone and susceptible component of an airplane is the pilot. If not for the pilot, we’d be able to build planes that are much cheaper and are capable of making pinpoint turns that pull 20Gs that would kill any human occupant.
Remember in Afghanistan when we started using unmanned Predator aircraft to bomb targets with such success? Those UAVs were run by the CIA, not by the Air Force, for the simple reason that the Air Force refused to arm UAVs. Air Force pilots behave like unskilled factory workers, afraid that automation will put them out of a job rather than embracing the new and clearly superior technology.
The two problems here are the Air Force leadership, who push for sexy new piloted planes at any cost whether we need them or not, and congress members of both parties who will support any project as long as the defense contractor agrees to produce some parts of it in their district.
July 25th, 2006 at 8:22 pm#62 The F-35 is inferior to the F-22 for AS tasks. Just because there is something else in the pipeline does not mean it is better. Each is designed for different purposes. The F-35 was not designed to be better than the F-22, it was designed to be something different - a multi-role fighter, meaning it does a little bit of everything. In fact, the F-35 program assumes the F-22 will be around for AS tasks. Many think the A-10 is more capable for CAS than the F-16 or the proposed F-35. The A-10 was designed for one purpose: CAS, which is why it is so effective. Some of the opinions here show why it is so easy for Repubs to say Dems are weak on defense. I think the F-22 program has been right-sized. The original ‘plan’ was 750 planes - about a 1:1 replacement for the F-15’s, and there are plans for less than 300 now. I believe the F-22 is also expected to take over some missions from the F-117, which is scheduled to be retired soon. The F-22 is an easy political target, but will be invaluable on any future battlefield.
July 25th, 2006 at 8:25 pmWhat would be the point of breeding if you aren’t strong enough to defend your young - you would offer yours up to your enemies….
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 25, 2006 @ 8:19 pm
You mean your parents still fend for you? I’m pretty certain the idea is to teach them to fend for themselves. And in the process not teaching them to do it through violence.
Your method is the reason 2500 children brought guns to school last year.
Offer children to ‘enemies’? You mean like the Republicans who declare war on intangible ideologies and then send everyone else’s children off to die for paranoia and fear…? Offering American children up to ‘enemies’ is the Right wing thing to do.
Personally, I have no enemies. I solve my differences with others without violence. But I guess that’s just my Atheistic morality speaking…
July 25th, 2006 at 9:04 pmSorry, was at work, so I didn’t get a chance to respond.
In response to #16 by Max, I’d ask you to look at #26, and consider the fact that the F-35 is only more capable as a multi-role fighter, the F-22 is leaps and bounds ahead in the role of air superiority. I’d also ask that you guys don’t fall into the “Al Qaeda Syndrome” as I call it. It seems that every time something bad happens now politically conservative spin-meisters manage to throw the words “Al Qaeda” in, as if they were a representation of terrorism itself instead of one group that we have expanded beyond its wildest dreams by making synonymous by terror. If you think the only goal of our government is fighting terror (however wrong that may be), say so, don’t say Al Qaeda, because it enables the conservate insanity.
July 25th, 2006 at 11:10 pmTo guys in the Pentagon: Those planes that attacked US soil were commercial airline units. And they were yours…so, if that story is true (which I dont believe, but anyway) you will spend $11 billion on new jets while terrorists are spending $20 on new nail cutters. Way to go. (oh…I remember, who cares about terrorists, we just want LOckheed Martin happy)
July 25th, 2006 at 11:46 pm#62 Also, there are CURRENT aircraft that are more capable than the F-15. The Mig-29/33 (Iran, North Korea, China), The Su-27/33 (China) and the Su-37 Super Fulcrum.
July 26th, 2006 at 12:21 am#72 We did not use commercial airliners or nail cutters to hit them back. Fighter aircraft are being used daily to kill terrorists. Unfortunately, it will always cost more for us to prevent terrorism or to respond to terrorism than it does for the terrorists.
July 26th, 2006 at 12:26 amUnfortunately, it will always cost more for us to prevent terrorism or to respond to terrorism than it does for the terrorists.
Comment by Troy — July 26, 2006 @ 12:26 am
Call me a lunatic but I am guessing that dropping money on military equipment will mean a sudden drop in terrorist threat. After all US is widely known for supporting nowadays terrorists.
July 26th, 2006 at 12:34 amJust more equipment to sell to Israel.
So they can sell it to China.
July 26th, 2006 at 2:26 amWe wasted $300 Billion on the Iraq War why not waste another $11 Billion?
July 26th, 2006 at 2:47 amWho cares we are never gonna pay for this anyways.
The US military claims it needs this jet fighter to go after Osama’s band of merry men living with goats and sheep in a cave in Pakistan > lol.
July 26th, 2006 at 3:00 amYeah, look how effective the last $500 billion was in finding Osama. Let’s spend more!
July 26th, 2006 at 3:15 am[…] Pentagon Approves $15 Billion Contract For Useless Weapons SystemThink Progress, DC - 12 hours ago… $15 billion contract for the F-22. The F-22 is arguably the Pentagon s most useless weapon system. Not only is it the world s … […]
July 26th, 2006 at 3:40 amThe F-22 was built to replace the aging F-15’s, and to help maintain the United States’ air superiority. Is that too hard to understand?
July 26th, 2006 at 8:58 am#81 The F-22 was built to replace the aging F-15’s, and to help maintain the United States’ air superiority. Is that too hard to understand?
Comment by Antagonist — July 26, 2006 @ 8:58 am
There are still welfare programs underfunded or being cut because Republicans love to cut welfare to fund inflated military projects, who are of use in a theoretical future case. Even the greatly touted No Child Left Behind, from Bush himself is underfunded. Welfare helps actual people. It’s so hard to understand?
July 26th, 2006 at 9:04 am#82
I grow weary of hearing liberal non-arguments like yours. I’m not even going to dignify your unrealistic ramblings with an explanation, except to say—If you can’t understand the importance of replacing our outdated military hardware by now—you never will.
July 26th, 2006 at 9:14 am#83
I grow weary of hearing liberal non-arguments like yours. I’m not even going to dignify your unrealistic ramblings with an explanation, except to say—If you can’t understand the importance of replacing our outdated military hardware by now—you never will.
Comment by Antagonist — July 26, 2006 @ 9:14 am
I know that your reading comprehension is poor but, I understand the -relative- importance of upgrade (not simply replacing as you say) the “outdated military hardware”. Look, I’m not even saying that the military costs must disappear. I’m saying that a project so costly is, by its definition ineffective in the actual world, and they are wasting your precious tax dollars, dollars that have been cut from helping actual people in disgrace as a fact, as the recent budget cuts have demonstrated.
July 26th, 2006 at 9:24 amIf you can’t understand the importance of replacing our outdated military hardware by now—you never will.
Comment by Antagonist — July 26, 2006 @ 9:14 am
You are going to be a great father or must be one already…when your child is hungry, you say to him/her: Shut up, kid, we need to mantain air superiority. We are at war, we dont have time to think about food, social benefits, medical care or pussies stuff like that.
July 26th, 2006 at 9:31 am#84
It’s obvious that you don’t know what you’re talking about, nor do you have any grasp as to what it takes to develop and build a fleet of aircraft. The military upgrades its existing aircraft all the time, until it they just simply can’t anymore—an airframe can only take so many hours of flight. I think we’re spending too much on welfare—money that could be spent on some sorely negleted military program.
July 26th, 2006 at 9:41 am#85
Where do you guys come up with this stuff? Is there some sort of liberal responce book filled with stock comments? For your information I have three kids, two are now adults, and one is still at home. They have always had plenty to eat because I WORK, and don’t rely on the welfare system to provide for them.
July 26th, 2006 at 9:46 amWhere do you guys come up with this stuff? Is there some sort of liberal responce book filled with stock comments? For your information I have three kids, two are now adults, and one is still at home. They have always had plenty to eat because I WORK, and don’t rely on the welfare system to provide for them.
Comment by Antagonist — July 26, 2006 @ 9:46 am
Oh, you have a WORK? And therefore everybody who works has enough to feed himself and his sons? Hey, maybe you have two grown up sons, but your grasp of reality is very feeble.
July 26th, 2006 at 9:54 am#70, unbelieveable,
Then you have merely been fortunate enough to deal with people who don’t use aggressive or passive-aggressive means to forcibly take from you what it is they want. When that day comes, you tell me what you do.
July 26th, 2006 at 10:09 am#88
Your liberal ideals have clouded your ability to think clearly. National Security and Defense must come before welfare in the same way that you must have a home before you try to furnish it. Your objections to the F-22 program are just a platform for you to once again criticize Republicans and the current Administration. Your mock concern over America’s welfare program is only a smoke screen for your motives, and an attempt to obfuscate a normal replacement of obsolete hardware.
July 26th, 2006 at 10:17 am#89 Jason,
Are you ready to start beating your head against the wall? I found that to be a far better option than trying to get unbelievable to see outside of the box she’s in—that or a sharp stick in the eye.
Good luck buddy!
July 26th, 2006 at 10:25 amSure, National security comes first. But really, who’s invading us? Who are we “protecting ourselves” against? Or are we spending $11 billion in planes to protect $1 billion in oil?
July 26th, 2006 at 11:26 amA better question would be—who would invade us if we didn’t maintain a superior defense? No one messes with the toughest kid on the block.
July 26th, 2006 at 11:37 am#82 With that outlook, we Dems will continue to be a minority and even more social programs will go unfunded. The DOD employs almost 3M people (mil + civil), and the defense industry employes several more millions; high-tech jobs with technology spin-offs for civilian use. Perhaps we should ship these jobs to India too and let the USAF buy Indian-designed Su-47’s? I don’t think so. We need a new plane to replace the F-15. It’s expensive. To correct my earlier post, there are only 178 F-22s planned (down from 750), at a true fly-away cost of less than $150 million. Based on standard AEF rotations, this provides less than 40 planes forward deployed at any given time. The F-35 is projected to be less expensive because it utilizes technology developed for the F-22 and it is less capable. This all seems reasonable to me.
July 26th, 2006 at 11:50 amActually, I think there will only be 7 F-22 squadrons, meaining only 25 planes per deployment rotation.
July 26th, 2006 at 12:04 pm#90 Your liberal ideals have clouded your ability to think clearly.
War, war, war, more weapons, more weapons, more weapons! Yes, your intellect is a blinding light to me. /Sarcasm off
Your military is already bigger than the ones of the rest of the world combined. But all you see is the need to make it bigger. With what end? To invade the rest of the world easily?
National Security and Defense must come before welfare in the same way that you must have a home before you try to furnish it. Your objections to the F-22 program are just a platform for you to once again criticize Republicans and the current Administration.
Not if there is people in need in your country, and your military is already the bigger in the world. Your fear is laughable and, at the same time, sad. And throwing bilions in a failed project is like making your house in a pool of mud, and without basement. It would end as the leaning Pisa tower eventually.
And, finally, what part of Think Progress escapes to your reading skills? If the current (Republican) administration is so regresive, what shocks you if you keep coming here and finding thougths against the bad decissions of this administration?
Your mock concern over America’s welfare program is only a smoke screen for your motives, and an attempt to obfuscate a normal replacement of obsolete hardware.
Comment by Antagonist — July 26, 2006 @ 10:17 am
My motives are: stop wasting money in failed weapons projects and use it for better causes, as to rebuild Orleans or buy detectors for your seaports. But hey, it looks more “proactive” to bomb the shit out of civilian people half the world away, with shiney new aircrafts, uh?
July 26th, 2006 at 12:44 pmAnd again, let’s spend $500 billion protecting $50 billion in oil.
July 26th, 2006 at 12:56 pmOne moment congress sides with Israel’s bombing of innocent children and the next moment a firm in the US is busily building guided missiles. Hmm. Now those senators wouldn’t be owning stock in those weapons manufacturers, would they? This kind of corruption could be solved with a few heads on pikes. How about taking some of the FBI agents who are busy harassing middle easterners and putting them to work on insider trades and corruption in our house and senate?
My vote goes to the first candidate who advocates more white-collar prisons and vows to fill them to 167% capacity in his/her first year in office. What a wonderful world it would be. I’d love to see Tom Delay bunking with four other guys in a 14×14 cell with no heat or a/c.
July 26th, 2006 at 1:02 pmThe F-22 is a dinosaur. Any military flying UCAVs will be able to defeat it and we will see UCAVs flying air superiority within the next ten years. Even the USAF admitted as much in the last five years. No crewed aircraft can defeat a UCAV because of biology and physics. The planes can be built to take 25-40g turns and the pilots can take only about 10g. Simple physics dictates that the UCAV can outturn and outaccelerate the best crewed aircraft. Why dump that much money into a system which is born loser?
July 26th, 2006 at 2:18 pmHoly smoke! This is my first visit to this website and I’m shocked at how so many people here talk about stuff they know so little about as if they are the resident subject matter expert.
Eisenhower called it “The military industrial complex†… it is one thing to build weapons that might be needed… but the F-22 is being replaced anyway… this is just more palm rubbing by contactors who turn around and use some of that money to bribe congress.
The Joint Strike Fighter is not being built to replace the F-22.
Yeh nevermind the f-16 and the f-18’s that came between them…and all those other things.
The F-16 is the aircraft you all should have been bitching about. Horrible aircraft! Cost us billions of dollars and many pilots lives. The F-18 is not as capable as the F-15 or the F-22 for air superiority because of the way it’s build. The Navy needs a heavier, stronger airframe to land on carriers, which takes away from speed and handling. The airforce doesn’t need to land on carriers, but desperately need speed and handling. You can’t compare Navy jets and Air Force jets, they are like apples and oranges because they do different jobs.
So, because the neocons deeply fear invasions by other countries, we have to spend more in defense than the rest of the world combined?
We may spend more than they do, but that’s because we we have a much higher GDP. We spend much less of our GDP on defense than the other top spenders, including China, North Korea, and Iran.
can’t fund decent helmets, body armour, vehicle armour but by damn we’ll fund a useless jet.
You may not want the US to fund the program, but your claim the jet is useless is stupidity. It’s the most capable aircraft in the world.
Any military flying UCAVs will be able to defeat it and we will see UCAVs flying air superiority within the next ten years.
You’re half right about this. It’s going to take the USAF some time to realize they are going to have to give up piloted aircraft much sooner than they’d like to (the whole culture and promotion process is centered around flying), but I don’t think other countries will be flying UAV’s capabable of defeating our pilots in 10 years. We’ve been in the UAV business for about 10 years now and we’ve just gotten to the point where we could build, fly, and fight with a UAV… I don’t think anyone else will do it as fast as we did. They’ll use crude UAV’s like the one Hezbollah just used to attack the Israeli ship with, but nothing of any consequence to our ability to fight it.
I do believe we should start the transition now, but good luck getting the Air Force to go along with that.
July 26th, 2006 at 3:17 pm#99 Last I knew, the current development of UCAVs centers on strike missions, not air superiority missions. AS missions have to overcome jamming of the control signal, meaning UCAVs need to be able to do automated AS. That will probably take a while. The ‘Soviet fighter never built’ refers to the Su-37, which is now being funded for development by India (and is now called the Su-47).
July 26th, 2006 at 4:24 pmThen you have merely been fortunate enough to deal with people who don’t use aggressive or passive-aggressive means to forcibly take from you what it is they want. When that day comes, you tell me what you do.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 26, 2006 @ 10:09 am
Actually, from your response, it sounds like YOU have never encountered such people. Funny what fear will make you do.
I’ve learned that the best defense is actually an offense. That means not painting myself into corners, using common sense, and being respectful to other people. It’s why no one attacks Switzerland… Switzerland doesn’t give them a reason to do so. We practically beg… I don’t expect you to understand that, but it doesn’t make it any less true.
July 26th, 2006 at 5:45 pmAre you ready to start beating your head against the wall? I found that to be a far better option than trying to get unbelievable to see outside of the box she’s in—that or a sharp stick in the eye.
Comment by Antagonist — July 26, 2006 @ 10:25 am
I’m an artistic, vegan Atheist who has no urge to breed. Obviously I live outside the box.
Frankly, I understand what you’re saying, I just happen to disagree with 90% of it. And it’s really the fact that you can’t convince me of your perspective that actually bothers you Ant… No matter how much you refuse to admit it.
And, so you know, it is actually Jason, ironically, who cannot change his mind. It’s a symptom of his Aspberger’s…
July 26th, 2006 at 5:49 pmMore recent Foreign Affairs article by Kagan is from July/August 2006. Your link goes to an article from 2001?
July 26th, 2006 at 9:08 pm#103
Why not.. I haven’t had a sharp stick in the eye in a while…
You are indeed in a box… one of your own making. AND I am not bothered in the least by your disagreeing with me. That’s one of the benefits of being married and having a family—you learn how to live with people that don’t agree with everything you say or do. The problem I have with you is that I’m not convinced that you really do understand my positions on any number of subjects. I have taken great pains to be as precise as my command of the English language will allow me to be, and your responses do not represent what I think or believe with any degree of accuracy. You arrogantly think you know my position and respond with some kind of snide remark and a diatribe against what you thought you heard. How often have I replied to you with a “No—that’s not what I said?” That never seems to matter to you and no amount of explanation ever seems to bring any clarification or any adjustment in your replies—hence the feeling of beating of my head against the wall or of having a sharp stick in the eye.
July 26th, 2006 at 9:24 pmFighter jets and pilots while not yet obsolete certainly are not forward thinking.
July 26th, 2006 at 9:33 pmThe wars of this century will either be troop dependent urban warfare or nuclear exchanges.
The days of dogfights and tank battles are long over.
The problem I have with you is that I’m not convinced that you really do understand my positions on any number of subjects.
The problem I have with that is that you’re wrong about this and cannot grasp it, because your position requires you to never question it. I have questioned it. It’s why you don’t get most of my responses to ou. Not the other way around. When you, like me, have alternatives to compare your perspective against, you might understand. Until then I expect you to continue to think it is me who doesn’t ge your perspective, when I lived it. I think you don’t like the fact that iI rejected it for something you do not see.
It’s about cultural Anthropology. We are trained to accept the things we are taught in our formative years, and that shapes our perspective. If you never question it or try another vantage point, you think your way is THE way and do not realize there is no truth - just many different perspectives. I have done that. And in doing that, I think your way of life is shallow, egocentric and painful in comparision to the perspective I’ve chosen.
And that is the key difference. I’ve defined my own ideology. You just follow someone else’s.
I have taken great pains to be as precise as my command of the English language will allow me to be, and your responses do not represent what I think or believe with any degree of accuracy.
Yes they do. From my perspective. Which you do not understand because you’ve never experienced it. Only your own.
I get why you feel this way. It’s the only way you know, so for me to come to a different conclusion about your beliefs is foreign to you, and not what you expect. It doesn’t make it invalid, as you claim. It just means, like it or not, I see the world from a different perspective, and do not like the one you have.
You arrogantly think you know my position and respond with some kind of snide remark and a diatribe against what you thought you heard.
I’m not even remotely arrogant. I just have more and more diverse life experience. That is a fact.
In a written format it is you who attaches the tone. If you take my comments that you don’t understand to be anything other than my perspective, then well, it is your problem that you do not accept or respect that it’s perfectly valid for me to think your perspective is ignorant and dangerous. You don’t like that I think your system is immoral. You validate that every time you whine about the fact that I think your perspective is egocentric and short-sighted. I don’t know why you care what I think, and don’t say you don’t, or you wouldn’t be bothered by it, because really, if your perspective is so perfect, then what I think would, or at least should to you, be inconsequential. If you think there is one right way and it is yours, then my rejection of it shouldn’t matter. And yet it does.
How often have I replied to you with a “No—that’s not what I said?â€
I don’t keep track. It’s not as relevant to me as it seems to be to you. Besides, you are one of the worst ones for misrepresenting liberals in general. Funny how it’s okay for you and no one else…
That never seems to matter to you and no amount of explanation ever seems to bring any clarification or any adjustment in your replies—hence the feeling of beating of my head against the wall or of having a sharp stick in the eye.
Comment by Antagonist — July 26, 2006 @ 9:24 pm
Because you think your way is right and don’t get that anyone could see it differently. It’s because you have not truly questioned your perspective or tried another. I read a fascinating book last summer on cultural anthropology. It explains that each human is taught a way to see the world, and very, very few are able to put it aside and try on another perspective. And that until you do that, you will not understand why someone doesn’t see you the way you see yourself (or anything else really).
But go ahead and call me names. I know it’s easier than questioning your inherited ideals.
July 26th, 2006 at 9:58 pmSigh…
It’s no use… even in your first reply to me you continue to insist that I want you to agree with me. I don’t, and have said so many times in our history. What you’re failing to grasp is a simple communication skill. When someone says something to you, you should reply with the equivalent of, “So what you’re saying is…” If that person responds in the affirmative, then you have successfully understood their position. Then you may proceed to either agree or disagree with them. If that person responds in the negative, then you have to accept that your understanding needs some tweaking until you get an affirmative response from them. This is how you maintain mutual respect.
I always respond to you in the negative because your replies to me are not accurate—indicating that you continually misunderstand what I have said, not because you don’t agree with me.
Of course I think I’m right—and so do you. However, you wrongfully assume that I never have, or never do question what I believe or why I believe it. Because I haven’t arrived at the same conclusions as you—you seem to think I’m incapable of this.
I’ll say this one more time—I don’t care what you think of my position. I truly don’t. What I do care about is that any attempt I make to communicate with you can’t even get off the ground. Contrary to what you may think of me, I really do care about getting along with others even if I don’t agree with them or they with me. Basic communication is all I ask. If you were to see a counselor for whatever reason, he or she could even be more liberal than you, and still they would say things to you like, ” So what you’re saying is…” The purpose would be to accurately understand where you are coming from. BUT, because I have this expectation, you chalk it up to my need for absolutes, or to some erroneous religious belief system, or some inherited ideals.
July 26th, 2006 at 10:55 pm[…] You would think with our military’s desperate need for armor and funding in the Middle East, they’d pay more attention to how their budget was spent, instead of wasting $11 Billion on a useless fighter plane that doesn’t work. But then again, when it comes to the Pentagon, it’s never been about the soliders, has it? […]
July 27th, 2006 at 10:45 amI question the characterization of the IDA study. My understanding is this study was done to determine if the proposed 3-year F22 procurement met the Congressional requirements for multi-year procurement or whether the Air Force needed to award three 1-year contracts. Also, the Center for American Progresses’ own QDR still called for 100 F-22s.
July 27th, 2006 at 12:44 pmI agree 100%. But then this Administration is all aboutpork barrel spending and then some.
July 27th, 2006 at 3:57 pmThe Project on Government Oversight has done intensive investigations into this issue. Attached is the URL to the report. I suggest everyone take a look at it. This report proves that the F-22 has a long way to go before it can reach MYP. POGO leaked the information regarding Admiral Blair to the Washington Post just in time for it to be brought up for the hearing this past Teusday. Talk about a strategic and effective move. Lockheed Martin attempted to play the Senate in their favor by manipulating the facts from the IDA. POGO presented nothing but the facts with precision timing, catching Lockheed in their own false claims. Kuddos to you POGO. Kuddos.
July 27th, 2006 at 4:09 pmHere is the link to the POGO report.
July 27th, 2006 at 4:12 pmhttp://www.pogo.org/p/defense/do-060701-f22a.html
It’s no use… even in your first reply to me you continue to insist that I want you to agree with me. I don’t, and have said so many times in our history.
Actions speak louder than words. Your actions belie your words.
What you’re failing to grasp is a simple communication skill.
Well, considering I’ve won awards and promotions in my career that conflict with your accessment on that, I’m gonna go with it is you who fails to grasp them.
When someone says something to you, you should reply with the equivalent of, “So what you’re saying is…â€
Again, you are lecturing me on the ‘one right way’ to act - your way. That’s showing that you need to be right. Nothing remotely subtle about that. Nothing.
If that person responds in the affirmative, then you have successfully understood their position.
What you don’t know about human behavior is staggering.
And your condescention is beyond tiresome. Save it for your children.
Then you may proceed to either agree or disagree with them. If that person responds in the negative, then you have to accept that your understanding needs some tweaking until you get an affirmative response from them. This is how you maintain mutual respect.
I thought I was clear that you lost my interest in mutaul respect the first time you attacked me.
Besides, I disagree that your method is how you attain mutual respect. I think it’s not something you are interested in as you came into a liberal website and began attacking people.
Again, your actions say far more than your words…
I always respond to you in the negative because your replies to me are not accurate—indicating that you continually misunderstand what I have said, not because you don’t agree with me.
You respond to me in the negative because you are a negative person. I don’t misunderstand you at all. As I mentioned above, I see the world from a different perspective. My perspective of you is just as valid as yours. It is THAT that you don’t get. There is no truth, just many different opinions. All equally valid to those who hold them.
I know, you don’t get it. You get nothing about reality. We’ve established that.
Of course I think I’m right—and so do you. However, you wrongfully assume that I never have, or never do question what I believe or why I believe it. Because I haven’t arrived at the same conclusions as you—you seem to think I’m incapable of this.
I’m not wrong. You haven’t questioned it. If you did, you wouldn’t be such an asshole to people at this website. In fact, you probably wouldn’t be here at all. Just as people like me don’t go to conservative or christian websites to play the role of an antagonist.
Again, your actions show your true face. You not liking that doesn’t make it invalid.
I’ll say this one more time—I don’t care what you think of my position. I truly don’t.
These are not the actions of someone who doesn’t care. If you don’t care what I think then, well, you don’t argue with me trying to convince me that you are right, honest, whatevere trait it is you keep telling me I’m ‘wrong’ about. If you don’t care it’s not necessary. I know, you don;t get that either. It’s easier to just think I’m wrong about everything….
What I do care about is that any attempt I make to communicate with you can’t even get off the ground.
Well, you established that and continue to perpetuate it with the way you address me. You think it’s me, but really, I’m one of those people who responds in like. You’re simply getting from me what you give. Don’t like the consequences of your actions? Consider your actions then.
Contrary to what you may think of me, I really do care about getting along with others even if I don’t agree with them or they with me.
Your actions say otherwise. I’m not the only liberal who sees you this way. I know, I know, we’re all wrong and you’re right - but you don’t care about that… The fallacious logic is from you just mind bending…
Basic communication is all I ask.
Then you should start by giving it. You don’t. Ask around.
If you were to see a counselor for whatever reason, he or she could even be more liberal than you, and still they would say things to you like, †So what you’re saying is…†The purpose would be to accurately understand where you are coming from. BUT, because I have this expectation, you chalk it up to my need for absolutes, or to some erroneous religious belief system, or some inherited ideals.
Comment by Antagonist — July 26, 2006 @ 10:55 pm
I am only going on what you told me. And how you’ve treated me and others.
Again, don’t like the consequences of your actions? Change your actions. You are the only one who can.
But, I know how it is. You can’t accept any accountability for the way you are treated. Even if you could accept that you teach people how to treat you, you still wouldn’t get that it applies to you. And I don’t have to assume that. I have always had the ability to read people. You care because you act like it. Saying you don’t doesn’t change that.
July 27th, 2006 at 7:28 pmPOGO has problems with every new military system. Of course, there are problems with every new military system, so it’s not that hard to find them. What is missing in their analysis is the fact that there are problems with current military systems also. We should not continue to rely on the F-15 for air superiority and we do not have the time or money to design something better than the F-22. They have problems with the F-35 too. Despite its problems, the F-22 is the best fighter in the world and will be for some time. Find an F-22 pilot and a member of the maintenance group and ask them if the F-22 is better than the F-15. I bet they will say yes.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:12 pmUnbelievable,
I would love to see how you would answer questions in a courtroom.
Judge: Maam, just please answer the question.
You: I have answered it from my perspective, you just don’t like what I had to say.
Judge: but nobody knows what you are saying.
You: That’s because I’ve defined my own ideology—you’ve never experienced this because you haven’t read ” Cultural Anthropology” and you can’t accept that your position is immoral…blah, blah, blah…
Judge: (begins hitting self in head with gavel)
It’s truly remarkable how you continually accuse me of assigning tone to your writings, while you keep assigning motive to mine—repleat with a complete character assessment. You’re so focused on trying to read between the lines, that you consistently miss the plain meaning of my words. Ah well…What more can I say to someone who tightly shuts their eyes, and puts their fingers in their ears? Your self-defined ideology and your self-prescribed morals have insulated you against reality.
Think what you want—I’ve had enough of you.
July 28th, 2006 at 8:45 amZach #4 and Max #16 state two cogent sides to this argument.
I’m certainly “a liberal” and think we spend waaay too much on killing, and its strangling us at home, too. Christ were always at war, and I think we’re paranoid haters now. We kill a lot of non combatants people, thats a fact. No wonder everyone hates us now.
The party system is whacked, they are just money launderers now, what us ghetto folk call “bagmen”. Their power comes from being the only legal recipient of large sums of cash. They only permit corporate whores to be nominated, in order to retain that control.. So no matter which party prevails, the winner is a corporate whore.
But i see the utility of the plane, at least for now, and have some dim understanding about procurement prices dropping drastically as the number produced increases.
What about this arguments that unmanned planes are the future.. sounds likely to me. Conrad? #68
July 28th, 2006 at 3:11 pmgeniuses #106: Regardless of what kind of fight you have on the ground you will need close air support, strategic air assets, airborne intelligence assets, and airborne command and control assets, so like it or not, the USAF is not going anywhere anytime soon.
July 28th, 2006 at 5:11 pmThink what you want—I’ve had enough of you.
Comment by Antagonist — July 28, 2006 @ 8:45 am
Only because you really don’t like yourself.
I’d imagine the judge’s words would go along with his or her actions. Unlike you and yours.
Your actions do not jive with your words. You should consider acting like the words… Then people might like you, including yourself.
July 28th, 2006 at 9:09 pmRalph Waldo Emerson:
“What you ARE stands over you the while, and thunders, so that I cannot hear what you say to the contrary.”
July 29th, 2006 at 11:05 am