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.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
Yeah, because there's no reason to replace planes that are older than most of the crews flying them. Or planes that are falling out of the sky. Or weapons that don't work. Or to pay for the war we're fighting (and whether you agree with it or not, we have to finish what we start). The AVERAGE age of the mainstay of the USAF (the F-15) is almost 26 years old. The B-52 was last built in the early 1960s, the B-1s in the 1980s, and even some of the B-2s are more than 15 years old. They have PASSED the age where they should have been retired, and are still being pushed hard. Almost 21% of our F-16 fleet is grounded for fuselage and wing cracks, and even the C-17 which is still being produced is showing fuselage cracks from the pace of operations we have them under.
Originally posted by West Coast
reply to post by xmotex
"Either you create your future, or you become the victim of a future someone creates for you."
[edit on 6-4-2008 by West Coast]
Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
reply to post by Johnmike
Blah-blah-blah...Another Bush apologist...
Hilarious and childish eh? Have you looked at the housing or job situations here bud? How about the cost of driving across town or food? Your DENIAL of what is going is what is hilarious. Our country is going to sh** and folks like you who act like everything's hunky dorey are not helping, you're part of the problem. Wake up.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known of any of my predecessors in peacetime, or, indeed, by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States cooperations -- corporations.
Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
The way chosen by the United States was plainly marked by a few clear precepts, which govern its conduct in world affairs.
First: No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice.
Second: No nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only ineffective cooperation with fellow-nations.
Third: Any nation's right to form of government and an economic system of its own choosing isinalienable.
Fourth: Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible.
And fifth: A nation's hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations...
The worst to be feared and the best to be expected can be simply stated.
The worst is atomic war.
The best would be this: a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the wealthand the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms in not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.
It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.
It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.
We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.
We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
These plain and cruel truths define the peril and point the hope that come with this spring of 1953.
This is one of those times in the affairs of nations when the gravest choices must be made, if there is to be a turning toward a just and lasting peace.
It is a moment that calls upon the governments of the world to speak their intentions with simplicity and with honest.
It calls upon them to answer the questions that stirs the hearts of all sane men: is there no other way the world may live?
Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
reply to post by Johnmike
Blah-blah-blah...Another Bush apologist...
Hilarious and childish eh? Have you looked at the housing or job situations here bud? How about the cost of driving across town or food? Your DENIAL of what is going is what is hilarious. Our country is going to sh** and folks like you who act like everything's hunky dorey are not helping, you're part of the problem. Wake up.
Domestic spending has actually grown faster than defense spending. Since 1990, federal outlays on domestic programs have increased 62 percent, nearly twice the 33 percent rise in defense and homeland security spending. The latter rose under President Bush, not only to respond to global terrorism, but also to make up for Clinton-era budget cuts that had left America’s military in danger of becoming a “hollow force.”
Defense spending is well below historical levels. At 4.0 percent of GDP, up from 3.0 percent when President Bush took office, current defense spending remains well below the 40-year average of 5.6 percent of GDP.
Originally posted by US Monitor
You can cry all about the anti-American bias, but it is there and it exists.
Originally posted by US Monitor
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
I would like to see the international laws that ban DU rounds as well as the other aspects you are referring too.