The West has lost it's military edge.......

Attached is a link to the mainstream media and a report on the BBC concerning the upsurge in military spending from the developing world verses the current western view of budget reduction on spending.......

www.bbc.com...

The MSM are painting a picture of weakness and decay whilst reporting the latest incursions into UK airspace (or near visits....)....;-)

Key facts are that HALF military spending in the west goes on salaries and pensions.....

The USAF has an average of 24 yr old fighters and 34 year old bombers on its fleet.....

Delivery of new fighter aircraft in the west has been overtaken by Russia......a first since 1915........


It's a bit like the 1930's all over again IMHO



Regards

PDUK

Bombing women and children and arming terrorists must make people soft.

That was just eight years of weak leadership under Obama. Things were pretty dismal for the West when Jimmy Carter was in office too, then Reagan happened.

originally posted by: Helious
Bombing women and children and arming terrorists must make people soft.

wheres your proof? or are you one of those guys that likes to spout off claims with no back up? I see how you are... no need to reply.

a reply to: PurpleDog UK

I wouldnt worry about it. We are going through a transition. We finally caught up with our own capabilities and can now specialize in advanced weapon platforms instead of generalizing in all branches.

I am no expert, but from what I hear, the weapons we are sitting on would make war obsolete. So we are delaying the advanced fighters....who cares. They are just a means of keeping our industry alive. We.could stop producing new weapons for a while but then we only give our enemies insight into how to counter them once they see them and realize what they can do.

Its nice to be seen as weak. Shows the other guys hand really quick.

originally posted by: Dizrael

originally posted by: Helious
Bombing women and children and arming terrorists must make people soft.

wheres your proof? or are you one of those guys that likes to spout off claims with no back up? I see how you are... no need to reply.

If i may....

A new analysis of the data available to the public about drone strikes, conducted by the human-rights group Reprieve, indicates that even when operators target specific individuals – the most focused effort of what Barack Obama calls “targeted killing” – they kill vastly more people than their targets, often needing to strike multiple times. Attempts to kill 41 men resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1,147 people, as of 24 November......

.....“Drone strikes have been sold to the American public on the claim that they’re ‘precise’. But they are only as precise as the intelligence that feeds them. There is nothing precise about intelligence that results in the deaths of 28 unknown people, including women and children, for every ‘bad guy’ the US goes after,” said Reprieve’s Jennifer Gibson, who spearheaded the group’s study.

Some 24 men specifically targeted in Pakistan resulted in the death of 874 people. All were reported in the press as “killed” on multiple occasions, meaning that numerous strikes were aimed at each of them. The vast majority of those strikes were unsuccessful. An estimated 142 children were killed in the course of pursuing those 24 men, only six of whom died in the course of drone strikes that killed their intended targets.

Bolding emphasis mine.

^ Sun Tzu ^ "Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak."

originally posted by: Dizrael

originally posted by: Helious
Bombing women and children and arming terrorists must make people soft.

wheres your proof? or are you one of those guys that likes to spout off claims with no back up? I see how you are... no need to reply.

I thought it was common knowledge...

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

youre talking about collateral damage (as bad as it is) and human error. his intent was that we "bomb women and children" which we don't.

you can try again if you feel the need, but you cant prove we go and bomb women and children (non-combatants).

im still waiting to see proof of us arming terrorists.

a reply to: superman2012

no its not. I guess youre wrong on two counts.

The West has lost it's military edge…….

It will be aright. The "wundewaffe" (wonder weapons) are on the way.
Gianter Aircraft Carriers, Planes that cost Billions, bombs that cost millions…

They'll fix it.

a reply to: Dizrael

Feel free to try to parse out intent. Reality is: we killed women and children with bombs. Calling them "collateral damage" doesn't mean we didn't kill them with bombs. And, if we are being honest, it isn't like we don't know that there is going to be "collateral damage". Which means: we knowingly kill women and children.

Unless you would like for me to believe that the military is completely oblivious to the civilians in the general vicinity of those bombs. Because, you know....killing 1100 to get 41.....the contortions of logic it requires to accept that.....

im still waiting to see proof of us arming terrorists.

???

That wasn't part of the discussion.....

but since you asked

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Good point now I have one.

If I was a terrorist and I knew at any moment I could be killed by a drone strike. The last place I would be would be around friends families or innocent civilians, I would not attend weddings funerals or visit my wife for fear they would be killed.

The only reason I could see a man making a decision to put friends family relatives at risk is for publicity and not caring about their lives.

a reply to: Greathouse

for whatever reason....

....41 were targeted, 1100 killed. Women and children still dead....

....lets say it was a US criminal somewhere in the midwest. Would we accept it? Do police fire into crowds to get a suspect they know is guilty?

So why the double standard? Are those women and children less important than ours?

you keep thinking that, OP

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Helious
Bombing women and children and arming terrorists must make people soft.

this where it was brought up.

and as to us "arming terrorists" they weren't terrorists at the time they were armed by us, they were armed because theyre goals at the time were aligned with ours. they later used terrorism but that came later.

anything else?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

If I knew they were trying to arrest me my patterns might not change as much. But if I knew there was a drone flying overhead with the hellfire missile meant for my ass I would definitely change my patterns so as not to endanger innocent people.

I am not making a moral judgment on the targeting of people with the drones I am just making a simple observation.

if you knew the US was targeting you for a drone strike would you go to your daughter's wedding?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Greathouse


So why the double standard? Are those women and children less important than ours?

the double standard is the country hiding them wont give them up. if the hiding country would give them up and stop harboring KNOWN terrorists we wouldn't have to lay it down.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Greathouse

for whatever reason....

....41 were targeted, 1100 killed. Women and children still dead....

....lets say it was a US criminal somewhere in the midwest. Would we accept it? Do police fire into crowds to get a suspect they know is guilty?

So why the double standard? Are those women and children less important than ours?

Maybe we should inform the deceased women and children...

They are a statistical anomaly.

a reply to: Dizrael

youre talking about collateral damage (as bad as it is) and human error. his intent was that we "bomb women and children" which we don't.

Ah so because there was no intent to kill woman and children that makes it all peachy....

Tell me if i was drink driving and i ran over your wife and kids does that make it ok because i did not intend to do it ?