It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New USAF tanker race about to begin

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   


posted by Zaphod58

The reason they're using private companies right now is simply because we don't have enough tankers for all the missions, and we aren't GOING to have enough tankers thanks to the KC-767 Great Tanker Fiasco. I have literally seen planes sit parked on the ramp waiting for a tanker for over a month.



It is too bad we so often say “military” when in fact we mean the civilians who have been put in change of the military men and women. For the most part, they are America’s Best! The political appointees OTOH, are, in my opinion, America’s Worst! Those who have either an agenda for themselves or an agenda for the appointing authority or if possibly worse, an agenda for both. America does not figure in here. I doubt you can find many appointees you’d want to share a beer with and certainly not a wwrwe. Well you know what I mean.




posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Here is this article about the Tanker Race. According to Analysts, the KC30 project could be killed due to Airbus current A380 situation. It seems also that the Airforce is not interested in a Cargo/tanker plane and prefer a pure Tanker




Officially, the Pentagon is listening to all kinds of bids for tanker service, including the idea of contracting it out to a third party, much the way the Royal Air Force has done in the United Kingdom. But the U.S. Air Force is cool to that idea, MarketWatch said.


Key Quote: "Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley say the service will listen to all comers. In interviews last week, however, both officials were skeptical about any solution that didn't involve outright purchases of new aircraft."


www.heraldnet.com...



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   
The WANT a pure tanker, HOWEVER, the REALITY is that they HAVE to have a tanker/airlifter. The USAF simply doesn't have enough airlift without the tankers as a backstop to assist. The review showed that they needed 80 C-17s if all 126 C-5s were upgraded to the M standard. However, they retired 14, so they needed 40 more C-17s to fill that role. They're only allowed to have 80 C-17s though, so they HAVE to have a tanker/airlifter to assist with cargo hauling. And having an airlift capability with the tanker also allows them to move fighters independantly of any cargo planes. Right now the KC-10/KC-135 moves the fighters, while hauling a spare engine or two, plus other parts, plus crew chiefs. If you take away the airlift then you have to have more airlifters because when you move fighters you have to get the engines and parts there in a seperate aircraft.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Hmmm, the link on your link (if you follow) leads to a PDF which reads like a guide for the hard of thinking. It perpetuates the myths that Airbus is entirely French and Boeings are entirely American (it even says 'flag waving' FFS! Well, if Boeing are waving the US flag then of course they should win
) It is also interesting that there is a view there that the A350/A380 sagas might 'kill' the KC-30. There is no reason given that holds water and it ignores two other factors, Northrop Grumman would produce the planes in America and it would be a boost to that company and also that the KC-330, which is the manufacturers designation for the KC-30, is already in production for the RAAF and shortly afterwards the RAF so there is no industrial reason at all why Airbus' other problems should kill the plane.

The whole thing reads like pro Boeing propaganda I'm afraid. Note the link I posted earlier that gives both the Boeing and Airbus side of the A380/747-8 confrontation. There is a notable absence of 'the other side of the story' here which limits the articles credibility as a journalistic piece.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by soulforge
The Air Force has 59 KC-10 Extenders, but over 400 KC-135, many of which are nearing end of service life. I'd thought we'd had many more KC-10 than we actually do.

I'm curious as why we wouldn't simply buy more KC-10s, instead of starting a new competition for a new refueler?


KC-10 Factsheet

KC-135








[edit on 3/7/2006 by soulforge]


You can thank the stooges in Congress for that little "oversight".

In fact, there are several other USAF articles and pubs from the Secretary of the Air Force regarding ALL of the current aging fleet and how it's not being replaced. Average age of aircraft when he began flying in the early 70's, 7 years old. Average age now? 30 years old. It's a bigger problem.

Sorry about the no-link. I have to scoot right now, but will try to druge one up upon request.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Darn! We're already $30 T. to $45 T. short on entilements for the baby boomers. We are running a $1/2 T. to $1 T annual shortfall of income to outgo. And now you lay this on me.



posted by Anon4this1

There are several USAF articles and pubs from the Secretary of the Air Force regarding the current aging fleet and how it's not being replaced. Average age of aircraft when he began flying in the early 70's, was 7 years old. Average age now? It’s 30 years old. It's a bigger problem.
[Edited by Don W]



Sounds much like the USA is getting ready to do a USSR! Go out of business. We have a president we don’t like who is in office for 30 more months, like him or not. We are stuck with him until January 20, 2009. There is something wrong with our system of governance when an unpopular man can stay in office more than two years without responsibility for his decisions or accountability for the consequences of those decisions. Hmm?

He - Geo W - America's first designated president, he opted to go to war on September 12. We didn't even talk about options, alternatives, consequences. Hey, War Is Great! The Holy Sport. War ought to be reserved for nation to nation work. The UN would have given us sufficient authorization to track down the perpetrators anywhere on the planet if we had acted half civilized ourselves.

Well, my point is, for every $1 OBL spends, we are spending 1000s and 10,000s. It won’t work folks. It won’t work. You will have to figure another way to deal with this unpleasantness. Now we are learning our expansive Air Force is 30 years old. We are looking at 100s of billions nay a trillion dollars to reequip an Air Force to fight who? Or is it “whom?”

Our Navy is bloated. Give it a GasX. 10 supercarriers and 2 abuilding . Crazy is the only word for that. Crazy.

We’ve gone berserk! We talk causally about nuking Iran and I guess we just might nuke North Korea, too. We talk about posting nukes in space. Like we had some “right” from God to do that. Sweet Jesus, have we drunk some kind of poison? Are we all suffering from lead poisoning? What’s up here? Say Hello Rome. The military industrial congressional born again complex is about to collapse. “And great was the fall thereof!” (That’s from the Holy Writ.)


[edit on 6/22/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   
10 carriers, with two building. Guess how many are ready to sail or at sea at any given time? 3-4 in each fleet. There is usually 1 in refit/refueling and 1 in overhaul per fleet. That's why during both Gulf Wars they sailed carriers from the Atlantic and Pacific to the Gulf for air ops. We NEED to have 10 carriers just to keep our operational pace going. And those two being built, at least one of them is a CVN-21, which will replace PROBABLY the Enterprise when she goes active. So we're gaining one and losing one.



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   


posted by Zaphod58

10 carriers, with two building. Guess how many are ready to sail or at sea at any given time? 3-4 in each fleet. There is usually 1 in refit/refueling and 1 in overhaul per fleet. That's why during both Gulf Wars they sailed carriers from the Atlantic and Pacific to the Gulf for air ops . . . “ [Edited by Don W]



OK, so we have 6-8 carriers out of 10 ready to go or already gone into action. I would like to see us with 1 SC in each of the Atlanta and Pacific/Indian fleets. 1 in reserve, 1 or 2 in overhaul. Scrap the remainder.


“ . . We NEED to have 10 carriers just to keep our operational pace going . . “



That’s my point. I don’t NEED to have more than 3-4 carriers in total and maybe not that many. I don’t want to “ . . keep our pace going . . “ that’s why we are in the quagmire in Iraq. We have only one mind set. We’re “killing” ourselves. The country is crazy. We’re talking about putting atom bombs in space. That ought to be a war crime.


“ . . one of them is a CVN-21, which will replace PROBABLY the Enterprise when she goes active. So we're gaining one and losing one.



And we can’t leave the Green Zone. Is there not something wrong here?

Our “enemy” spends $10 million or so, we spend $100 billion. How long can any country keep that up? How long before any country would re-examine the entire picture? How Long?



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   
It has nothing to do with how much we spend. It has EVERYTHING to do with politicians tying our hands and preventing us from prosecuting the war the way it SHOULD be prosecuted. This is the same thing they did in Vietnam. During that conflict all target selection had to go through DC and the ROE was so insanely strict that by the time they got authorization for a pop up target, the target was long gone. Well in Iraq they're so determined to win the hearts and minds that they're hamstringing our soldiers and keeping them from fighting the war, and taking out the insurgents.

As far as the 3 CVNs, they were 2 from PACFLT and 1 from ATLANTFLT.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   


posted by Zaphod58

It has nothing to do with how much we spend. It has EVERYTHING to do with politicians tying our hands and preventing us from prosecuting the war the way it SHOULD be prosecuted. This is the same thing they did in Vietnam. During that conflict all target selection had to go through DC and the ROE was so insanely strict that by the time they got authorization for a pop up target, the target was long gone.
[Edited by Don W]



Thanks, Z58, for your thoughtful reply to my earlier post. First of all, let me say I do not mean to convey I have values or understandings you do not have. Or that my perceptions are better than yours. If my insights were so perfect and so irrefutable, everyone including you would already be onboard. So what I’m really saying is, it’s my POV. Point of view.

And now, to your post. Sure, I’m going to argue the ROE of Vietnam were politically necessary. Please do not overlook the fact the very same people making those target selections knew that, too. It was not something critics discovered long after the fact. I can’t re-tell the whole Vietnam War story here in 8,000 characters or less, but keep in mind Johnson inherited the War from JFK in total surprise on November 22. Aside: LBJ adroitly used the national grief over JFK to enact much of his own Great Society programs.

Vietnam OTOH, started with Pres. Eisenhower, a renowned military leader and a fellow Texan. Whatever LBJ thought of the War personally, the institution of the presidency had already committed the US to the War. LBJ did not share the same motivations Ike and Kennedy held towards South Vietnam. But LBJ never took kindly to losing anything.

By 1964 the Dulles’ brothers “Domino Theory” was already discredited, but we had no consensus for a replacement theory. Still, as we saw later in Nixon, no president wants to see a defeat happen on his watch. (Which may explain Geo W's own recently expressed determination to stay in Iraq until 2009?) OTOH, LBJ did not want to repeat the (Korean War) mistake of 1950 and involve China directly in the War. It was likewise very unwise to risk a rerun of the Cuba missile crisis by bombing Russian ships in Haiphong harbor.

Consider. If the enemy knows where his targets are, and we must give them that, then our ability to hit that spot even if late showed the enemy we knew where the good stuff was and we could hit it if we wanted. This must have some temporizing effect on any calculating enemy. I’m saying, to be late is not necessarily the same as to miss.




In Iraq they're so determined to win the hearts and minds that they're hamstringing our soldiers and keeping them from fighting the war, and taking out the insurgents. As far as the 3 CVNs, they were 2 from PACFLT and 1 from ATLANTFLT.



Maybe, maybe not. I’m not sure how much “hamstringing” is really going on in Iraq and how much is just conjecture from outsiders. Which brings me to collateral damage. I don’t like the term “innocent’ all to frequently used here in emphasis as an adverb. We Americans lost any right to use that term as an adjective (descriptive) long ago. As in Wounded Knee and forcefully removing the Cherokees to Oklahoma and patting the Apaches into Florida and so on. As in Sherman’s March through Georgia and South Carolina. As in Dresden. As in Hiroshima.

How “deep” to fight the war is the constant problem facing leaders and summarized in the term “escalation.” Look, Z58, I hear we’d need 300,000 soldiers on the ground to “occupy” Iraq. Successfully. They don’t have to all be American soldiers. But we’ve never had more than the barest “coalition of the willing” and Bush Cheney Rumsfeld Rice do not seem to care a whit. That’s why I call them the Gang of Four. They have a plan but we don’t know what it is.

We can’t put more soldiers into Iraq than we have. We have no more soldiers available. I think this is called being “stretched too thin.” That is evidence either of inadequate preparation or yet another failure of intelligence, take your pick. I truly believe the military professionals at the Pentagon warned of this, but the civilian appointees at the Pentagon ignored or overruled them.

Iraq. We’re in a quagmire. The President has already said we will be in Iraq through his term in office. He does not leave office until January 20, 2009, like it or not. Like him or not. That’s another thread, but I’m calling for a Constitutional Convention to fix that and many other problems in the American system.

But then, I'm a leftist.

An activist. A proactive government person. Fix things, don’t ignore them. I love government when it is doing the right things. It’s the only way 300 million people can improve their lot in life.

And privatization of government is a theory born in hell. It is the final act of disempowerment of the American people. It is the American version of Hitler’s Nazi-style fascism of the 1933-1945 era. The Third Reich, once removed. Updated with the Patriot Act. And Bush’s novel Commander-in-Chief theory (no limit on his self-determined war fighting power).



[edit on 7/3/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Couple of thoughts as I browse through the thread:

1) KC-17/KC-5: Even with its new GE engines the C-5M's will be in short supply for regular cargo duty as well as the fact what is thier mission ready rate going to be even with the new engines. The C-17 which is an excellent cargo hualer as with any aircraft has a series of compromises that would make in inefficent to use as tanker.

2) Airbus versus Boeing: While we don't know if the A330 or the 767 will be the final choice this is how I see it. If Airbus gets "Launch aid" for the revised A350 it will be the final nail in KC330's coffin. Boeing can wage a pretty good PR campaign on this front. That being said any tanker contract will have to get past John McCain who is PISSED at Boeing so it still wont be easy.

3) The USAF may be looking at a Hi/Lo mix of aircraft to fill the need. A buy of large plus small tankers. Like a KC777 and a KC737 or thier Airbus equiv. The MMA 737 could be easily adapted to the tanker role.

4) Rebuilding MD-11's: As noted above these a/c are being phased out and parts would become an issue before long. No point in even touching a DC-10 let alone the newer MD-11's

5) KC747: Another option that may hold merit esp if they go the high low mix. Still being flown and parts are not an issue etc. THis option has been looked at serveral times before in the past. many -400 models are avalible plus it gives you a huge cargo capacity as well. However there will be competiton to get low hour airframes from the comercial cargo hualers.

6) A380 / 787: Not a real option at this point. Poltics aside both have limited near term production slots and no R&D have gone into a tanker version of either as far as I know.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   

donwhite
We’re talking about putting atom bombs in space. That ought to be a war crime.

? - I didn't know the US was planning on that...link?
BTW, I see weapons in space inevitable.

And dispite what you read from the media (which is 90% left) Iraq is getting better. And were you thinking that re-building a country and putting in place a new government would be cheap and hassle free.

We have to stay there at least until they have a good police force and acceptable military. which I would guesstimate is around 2-4 years.

oh, and only having a couple carriers is plain stupid. BTW, there not just used for wars...but the help out during major dissasters (IE: Katrina & the Indian Ocean Tsunami).



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   


posted by Murcielago


donwhite

We’re talking about putting atom bombs in space. That ought to be a war crime.


I didn't know the US was planning that . . link? BTW, I see weapons in space inevitable . . were you thinking that re-building a country and putting in place a new government would be cheap . . We have to stay there until they have a good police force and acceptable military. which I guesstimate is 2-4 years. Oh, and only having a couple carriers is plain stupid. BTW, they’re not just used for wars . . but the help out during major disasters (I.E.: Katrina & the Indian Ocean Tsunami). [Edited by Don W]



Who asked, "Give Peace A Chance?"

1) Nothing is inevitable. Especially weapons in space. Only a few countries can launch those and anyone can tell when that happens. It is a matter of will, not capacity.
2) Rebuilding? And just who asked us to “re-build?” Like in New Orleans? Or “teach” them how to hold elections like in Florida? Come-on now, M, we have enough work at home to keep us busy for a decade or two.
3) After 1991, we had no foreign enemy. We are still looking for an enemy worthy of our arsenal.
3A) Even the Ruskies like it in the non super-power status. Life is much less complicated. And less expansive. It’s not as if we don’t have things to do at home. 43 million outside the health care system. Schools going on 50 years need replacing. More teachers are needed. Highways need rebuilding. And etc.
4) So are you suggesting, M, we could send a tank in place of an ambulance on a 911 call? Disaster specific ships would be great if we didn’t waste our national treasure on 80,000 ton aircraft carries.

Q. How do you tell a man from a boy?
A. You can tell the men from the boys by the cost of their toys.


See Links Below, Murcielago





Excerpted from The NY Times for May 19, 2005
Air force urges Bush to deploy space arms . . USAF seeks approval of a national security directive that could move the United States closer to having offensive and defensive space weapons . . The proposed change would be a substantial shift in policy . . would replace a 1996 Clinton administration policy that emphasized a more pacific use of space. In 2002, Bush withdrew from the 30-year-old Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, [acting illegally?] which banned space-based weapons. A new presidential directive is expected within weeks,

With little public debate, the Pentagon has already spent billions of dollars developing space weapons and preparing plans to deploy them. The AF believes "we must establish and maintain space superiority" said General Lance Lord, who leads the USAF Space Command, "Simply put, it's the American way of fighting."

USAF strategy called Global Strike calls for a military space plane carrying precision-guided weapons armed with a half-ton of munitions. [Nuclear bombs?] Global Strike would be "an incredible capability" to destroy command centers or missile bases "anywhere in the world" . . the weapon could strike from halfway around the world in 45 minutes. "This is the type of quick Global Strike I have identified as a top priority for our space and missile force," Gen. Lord said.

After 22 years and nearly $100 billion, Pentagon officials say they cannot reliably detect and destroy a threat. Studies by leading weapons scientists, physicists and engineers place the cost of a space-based anti missile system at anywhere from $220 billion to $1 trillion . .

The Air Force has launched the XSS-11, an experimental micro satellite . . another space program, nicknamed Rods From God, aims to hurl cylinders of tungsten or uranium from the edge of space striking at speeds of about 7,200 miles an hour, with the force of a small nuclear weapon.

No nation will "accept
the U.S. developing something they see as the death star," Teresa Hitchens of the Center for Defense Information, Senior military and space officials of the European Union, Canada, China and Russia have objected publicly to the notion of American space superiority.




See www.strategypage.com...

See Also www.tompaine.com...


[edit on 7/4/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   

donwhite
1) Nothing is inevitable. Especially weapons in space. Only a few countries can launch those and anyone can tell when that happens.

I beg the differ.
and no, a country cant tell when that happens...They may know that we launched a classified satellite...but they dont know what it does.


donwhite
2) Rebuilding? And just who asked us to “re-build?” Like in New Orleans? Or “teach” them how to hold elections like in Florida? Come-on now, M, we have enough work at home to keep us busy for a decade or two.

And what do you purpose? That we just cut and run.....You sound like a politician back during vietnam.
If we leave now (before they are standing on there own 2 feet) then its likely that the entire country will turn into a terrorist harboring country...just like Afghan & the Taliban was.
I Agree that we have plenty of things to spend our money on here...But We cant rewind time...were already over there...we have to finish the job.


donwhite
3) After 1991, we had no foreign enemy. We are still looking for an enemy worthy of our arsenal.

Iran & North Korea



3A) Even the Ruskies like it in the non super-power status. Life is much less complicated. And less expansive.

definitely not. The Russians liked being a superpower...and some still think they are. There constantly still doing things on the worlds stage to make people think there a superpower...when in fact they arn't....A deeper look into there military shows one that continues rust away faster then they can build new items to replace the old ones.
The US said there going to build a missile shield...It was aimed to be a defensive weapon against a country will only a dozen or so nukes. Russia has thousands of nukes...So they could easily over whelm or anti-ballistic missile shield and strike us. So what do they do...they create a missile that zig zags in flight to our missiles wont be able to hit it in flight. Thats just one example of them 'fronting' on the world stage.


donwhite
4) So are you suggesting, M, we could send a tank in place of an ambulance on a 911 call? Disaster specific ships would be great if we didn’t waste our national treasure on 80,000 ton aircraft carries.

of course not.
dissaster ships do exist...just in to small of numbers to help out with the entire world.
Carriers have been here for a long time...love'em or hate'em...I dont see them going away for a long time...since their already developing the next-gen carrier...which I believe is designed to last for 50 years....so ya better get used to them.
I assume the navy has done its homework on the need for carriers...So I wont question have them. But If it were up to me.....I dont think I would. I would get rid of them...and I would build missile ships...which would be ships that are stealthy and have hundreds of missile tubes on it, and it would be crewed by around a dozen people, not thousands.

You obviously have a 'left' point of view....other wise theres no way you would read the NY Times.
heres my beef with this 'left' article.

In 2002, Bush withdrew from the 30-year-old Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, [acting illegally?] which banned space-based weapons.

Illegaly...not hardly. This was simply an old treaty between the US & the Soviet Union...Its job was basically to make sure that MAD didn't happen.
The US gave Russia the required 6 month "heads-up" on it that they were leaving that treaty.


The AF believes "we must establish and maintain space superiority" said General Lance Lord, who leads the USAF Space Command, "Simply put, it's the American way of fighting."

I agree with this.
Who ever has the high ground...has the advantage...space is the ultimate high ground.


No nation will "accept the U.S. developing something they see as the death star," Teresa Hitchens of the Center for Defense Information, Senior military and space officials of the European Union, Canada, China and Russia have objected publicly to the notion of American space superiority.

ummm yeah. I dont think that shocked anyone. I dont think anyone expected these big players (except for Canada, (they just like to pretend there big)) to want to have the US military be once again...another step ahead of them.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   


posted by Murcielago

They may know that we launched a classified satellite . . but they don’t know what it does. [Edited by Don W]



We used to launch our war-like satellites from Vandenberg AFB in CA. Other satellites were launched from Florida’s Cape Canaveral. That gave a clue as to what we were doing.



And what do you purpose? That we cut and run . . You sound like a politician back during Vietnam . . If we leave now before they are standing on there own 2 feet then its likely that the entire country will turn into a terrorist harboring country . . we are already there . . we have to finish the job.



In 1968, after the Tet Offensive, Nixon ran for president on the implied promise to end the war. In a close election, he beat Hubert Humphrey. Nixon prolonged the war from mid 1969, to 1974, at the cost of over 20,000 US KIA and 1,000,000 Vietnamese. Then Nixon and the US “cut and ran” and South Vietnam fell in 1975 to Ho Chi Minh. You’ve seen the tv of the “escape” from the US Embassy in Saigon?

So what did we gain by not cutting and running in 1969? After we did cut and run, the US survived, the world survived, and the Vietnamese do not hate us.

But the 20,000 KIA died in vain.
“Thanks, guys, but our pride was at stake. You’all will understand, won’t ya? We’re really sorry about that. Your dying and all.” God Bless.




We are still looking for an enemy worthy of our arsenal. Iran & North Korea?



I dunno, M. North Korea is one of the poorest countries in east Asia. Iran will whip our butts so we better leave them alone. They can block the Strait of Hormuz - anytime. If they do that, say “Hello, $10 a gallon gasoline!”





The Ruskies non super-power status . . in fact they aren’t [a super power] A look into their military shows one that continues to rust away faster then they can build new items to replace the old ones.


Agreed.





“ . . disaster ships exist . . just in too small of numbers to help out with the entire world . . Carriers have been here a long time . . If it were up to me . . I would get rid of them . . I would build missile ships . . which have hundreds of missile tubes, it would be crewed by a dozen people, not thousands. You obviously have a 'left' point of view . .



True. An old peacenik. Left over from the 1960s. Running out of testosterone. Hey, nothing lasts forever!



2002, Bush withdrew Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty acting illegally? which banned space-based weapons.
Illegally? Not hardly. The US gave Russia the required 6 month "heads-up" on it that they were leaving that treaty.



I haven’t read the Treaty. I would think the “proper” procedure to annul a Treaty would be in consultation with the Senate. Good manners. Maybe even required? Our Con speaks only of ratifying and not of terminating. I don’t like the usurpation of power by the Executive under Geo W.





No nation will "accept the U.S. developing the death star" the European Union, Canada, China and Russia have objected publicly to American space superiority. ummm yeah. I don’t think that shocked anyone. I don’t think anyone expected these big players (except for Canada, (they just like to pretend they’re big)) to want to have the US military be once again . . another step ahead of them.



"Shock" is not the way a wanna be leading nation operates. I’d like to see issues like this debated publicly. We’ve never been good at that. Our system is not open as in the British or Canadian system. America has no designated opposition leader. We are compelled to take a lot on faith and when your leader lies about WMDs and so on, then you see why I’d like more open debate of some kind. We’re talking not only what relationship towards other countries we are to take, but we may be committing ourselves to spend a lot of money which the current administration prefers to borrow. Excessive borrowing won’t effect me so much as it will people who are younger. They will pay, you can be sure. It's pay now or pay later. Maybe "later" is when you'd like to send your kids to college but you can't. Taxes are just too high, paying back those old debts when the good times rolled and taxes were for the dumb to pay. Or lefties. Hmm?

Thank You, Geo W! You have truly blessed America.



[edit on 7/4/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite

And privatization of government is a theory born in hell. It is the final act of disempowerment of the American people. It is the American version of Hitler’s Nazi-style fascism of the 1933-1945 era. The Third Reich, once removed. Updated with the Patriot Act. And Bush’s novel Commander-in-Chief theory (no limit on his self-determined war fighting power).



Your absolutely spot on here.


Its shocking the similarities...

For Reichstag fire see Twin Towers
For "Islamic fundamentalists" see Jews
For Halliburton see Krupp



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   


posted by kilcoo316



posted by donwhite

privatization is a theory born in hell . . the final act of disempowerment of America . . the American version of Hitler’s Nazi-style fascism of 1933-1945. The Third Reich . . the Patriot Act . . Bush’s novel Commander-in-Chief theory (no limit on his self-determined war fighting powers). [Edited by Don W]




You're absolutely spot on here. Its shocking the similarities . .
For Reichstag fire see Twin Towers - Incite fear in the common folk!

For "Islamic fundamentalists" see Jews - demonize the enemies responsible for everything that goes wrong . .

For Halliburton see Krupp - greedy corporate fingers reaching into the public treasury. Corrupt public officials who you can’t be sure are working for you or the corporations. No accountability.

[Comments added by Don W]

Q. How would Red stater's have voted in 1933, in Germany?



[edit on 7/4/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
The A330 ended commercial sales of the 767

Now you have shown that you know absolutely nothing about what you're talking about. Delta Airlines alone has ordered 100 767s.

[edit on 20-7-2006 by Deutschland_ist_doof]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join