CNN's Crossfire: The Nader Factor

[fintstone]

I know these weapons well..I have either used, worked on, or been involved in the acquisition/maintenance of many of them. Glad to see you are such an expert. All of these were used very effectively in Iraq (including the B-1) and many were used in Afghanistan and Kosovo and saved many US lives. Don't you even watch TV? Guess I am an armchair warrior now...as you say....but you clearly have no knowledge in this area. Kerry was briefly in the military...I served 26 years..then worked as a civilian in a similar capacity. You should do at least a little research before making such silly statements. Got to give you credit though...You are game to argue regardless of how little knowledge you have on the subject.

[fintstone]

Bob
here is additional information regarding my supposition:
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040301-085725-5267r.htm

[Moneyguy1]

Sing:

Thank you. I did read it and found it at least thought provoking.

BTW...Did you see the selection of books for sale on the bottom of that page?

Interesting bunch

Coulter
Hannity
OReilly
Goldberg
Stossel
Savage
Hughes

Not exactly a "fair and balanced" selection!!

Unfortunately, the juxtaposition of the article and the books kinda takes away the bite the article would have had if it were allowed to stand on its own merits.

[350HP930]

Originally posted by fintstone
I know these weapons well..I have either used, worked on, or been involved in the acquisition/maintenance of many of them. Glad to see you are such an expert. All of these were used very effectively in Iraq (including the B-1) and many were used in Afghanistan and Kosovo and saved many US lives. Don't you even watch TV? Guess I am an armchair warrior now...as you say....but you clearly have no knowledge in this area. Kerry was briefly in the military...I served 26 years..then worked as a civilian in a similar capacity. You should do at least a little research before making such silly statements. Got to give you credit though...You are game to argue regardless of how little knowledge you have on the subject.

Well, if you think that the B1 is an effective weapons system that speaks for itself. Even your ideolog Rumsfeld thinks that it is a weapon system that needs to be scrapped. Oh well, I guess he doesn't watch enough TV either.

Its interesting that you should act like these new systems were needed to fight in Kosovo and Afghanistan concidering that a lot of the bombing and operations in those areas were carried out by aircraft that predate all those systems you mention.

The B52 is a classic example. Even 50 year old designs still work fine. The A-10 is another case of a old system that does what it needs to just fine.

Then again producing the same old designs for decades doesn't make weapon manufacturers as much money as producing new systems to replace what already works.

So you claim to have spent a couple decades in the military and now are a civilian who still works for the military. I would expect you to know better but perhaps you are making your living off of promoting new weapon systems that the military doesn't need.

[fintstone]

Amazingly you continue to speak much about things you know little about. Don't the facts mean anything to you? Where do you get this drivel? If this is the kind of kool-aid the dems are putting out, no wonder some are so rabid.

Well, if you think that the B1 is an effective weapons system that speaks for itself. Even your ideolog Rumsfeld thinks that it is a weapon system that needs to be scrapped. Oh well, I guess he doesn't watch enough TV either.

What would make you think Rumsfeld wants the B1 scrapped? Because he advocated consolidating them to fewer bases and reducing the number so there would be enough parts to fly them? That sure is a leap.
Initially, during the Reagan era, there were problems with the B-1, but those were long ago fixed. The B-1 was originally designed to carry nukes and has been switched to a conventional role only. The B-1B holds 43 world records for speed, payload, range, and time of climb. The B-1B was first used in combat in support of operations against Iraq during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998. In 1999, six B-1s were used in Operation Allied Force, delivering more than 20 percent of the total ordnance while flying less than 2 percent of the combat sorties. Eight B-1s were deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. B-1s dropped nearly 40 percent of the total tonnage during the first six months of OEF. while maintaining an impressive 79 percent mission capable rate.

Its interesting that you should act like these new systems were needed to fight in Kosovo and Afghanistan concidering that a lot of the bombing and operations in those areas were carried out by aircraft that predate all those systems you mention.

Just because you can drive a '55 Studebaker doesn't mean it is as safe or effective as a newer car. B-52s were delivered from '54 to'62. Yes, the B-52 still works fine.....but only after the other aircraft noted above (that you claim we don't need) have cleared out the air defenses. Otherwise it would be like shooting fish in a barrell. The same is true for the A-10 which is great against tanks and folks on the ground with small arms, but useless against fighters or SAMs.

So you claim to have spent a couple decades in the military and now are a civilian who still works for the military. I would expect you to know better but perhaps you are making your living off of promoting new weapon systems that the military doesn't need.

Glad you know more what our military needs to do their jobs than they do. You should be a consultant. I guess you would prefer to even up the odds abit (like Kerry), so our enemies have a little better chance of winning a conflict. oh, and many of these systems you call "new" are at least 20 years old. Why do you continually assume or guess at things you know nothing about and then state them as fact? Because it fools folk who don't know any better? Why would you question my military service? Guess the only person who has ever seved was Kerry...and he refuses to make his records public. And no, I did not claim to still work for the military or anyone for that matter.

[joeclarke]

fintstone - ya sure can keep a guy giggling.

Let us know if you need help with that "L" issue you're wrestling with - we all understand the misery of ellegraphobia. Or maybe you're just trying to cut new ground here?

Your simplistic take on world issues is a refreshing break from all those boring, referenced diatribes we see on this board.

[fintstone]

joe
I don't understand what you mean..what is an "L" issue?
I have not seen many referenced issues on this thread, only a lot of name calling....but would be happy to find references for anything I have posted...Just let me know which you are interested in.

[fintstone]

please explain "ellegraphobia" too.

[singpilot]

Moneyguy;

I went and looked at those references as well.... yes, those are a hoot.

His polish and his website need some work. Did you notice that the CEO of Disney in the article references is listed as David Eisner?

[Overpaid Slacker]

FWIW, a few weeks ago I'd read that three separate Senatorial review sources (one Dem, one Rep and one Independent) ranked Kerry as the most Liberal Senator (based on voting record). The guy is left of BigFatTedKennedy for chrissake. Now, I know that some here will view that as a Good Thing; but whether it's "good" or not, it's true (you can take my word for it or not... I suppose).

But, strangely, the most Liberal Senator in the Congress is not called "ultra-Liberal" whereas even speaking the term "supply-side" gets one branded "ultra-Conservative".

Why on Earth would that be?

350 - please enlighten us with your military credentials, so we can best judge who is and who is not an armchair warrior. I mean, it would be asinine, would it not, to hurl that invective at someone in the same breath in which you provide what you believe to be detailed weapons system knowledge (which is incomplete, btw) without having substantial military or weapons system experience yourself. Or maybe you meant to say "chickenhawk", another term used in an attempt to shame an opponent into silence to avoid the principled debate that would be a lost cause.

My guess is there are plenty of people on this board with actual military and weapons system experience that would .... well, disagree is to weak a term, but disagree with your expert opinion as to the redundancy, value and efficacy of the equipment mentioned.

JP

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Wouldn't a REAL lefty liberal donate any of his money that isn't necessary for maintaining a simple hermit-like existence?

Oh, wait, what's good for the goose ISN'T necessarily what's good for the gander.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Blue -
There is a very good (though admittedly oversimplified and very cynical) reason why the wealthiest folks would go as far Left as possible -- it's principally INCOME that's taxed, not capital or wealth. So, if you're very very wealthy but don't "earn" a lot of income, raising income taxes actually pushes the tax burden down onto the upper-middle and middle classes, preventing them from joining you at the pinnacle. Oh, and you can couch your self-interest as concern for The People.

JP

[350HP930]

Originally posted by fintstone
What would make you think Rumsfeld wants the B1 scrapped? Because he advocated consolidating them to fewer bases and reducing the number so there would be enough parts to fly them? That sure is a leap.

Perhaps the following stories and many others just like them are the reasons why I know that Rumsfeld wants to get rid of the B1. Unfortunately there are too many districts sucking from the teat of the B1 so all rummy could do was kill off a third and consolidate them closer to the service centers they are so very dependent upon. If memory serves me correctly I also believe that it was the B1 that required the special $1000+ toilet seats of weapon graft fame. If you are going to try and act like you know what you are talking about at least take a little time to research what you think to be true.

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/defense/b1vb2.htm

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,170605,00.html

http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/dailynews/pentagonbombercuts_010626.html

http://slate.msn.com/default.aspx?id=1008093

"Even before the last B-1 rolled off the assembly line in 1988, the Air Force had determined that the plane was vulnerable to Soviet air defenses. A 1991 study found it could not fly in snow because it had no effective de-icing equipment. Engine problems sidelined it during the Persian Gulf war. And in 1999, the Pentagon delayed using B-1's over Yugoslavia until enemy defenses had been suppressed by aging B-52's and other aircraft.

When Rumsfeld, who is well aware of all these problems, proposed getting rid of about one-third of the 93 existing B-1s, the Armed Services Committee in the Republican-controlled House promptly voted to block any cuts in the B-1 force."

Originally posted by fintstone
Just because you can drive a '55 Studebaker doesn't mean it is as safe or effective as a newer car. B-52s were delivered from '54 to'62. Yes, the B-52 still works fine.....but only after the other aircraft noted above (that you claim we don't need) have cleared out the air defenses. Otherwise it would be like shooting fish in a barrell.

I guess my 930 was also obsolete when they built it in the late 80s cause it was based on 60s technology. Riiight . . .

Also, just to reiterate who cleared out the defenses for who, let me requote from the above quote above one more time . . .

"And in 1999, the Pentagon delayed using B-1's over Yugoslavia until enemy defenses had been suppressed by aging B-52's and other aircraft"

Originally posted by fintstone
You should be a consultant. I guess you would prefer to even up the odds abit (like Kerry), so our enemies have a little better chance of winning a conflict. oh, and many of these systems you call "new" are at least 20 years old. Why do you continually assume or guess at things you know nothing about and then state them as fact? Because it fools folk who don't know any better? Why would you question my military service? Guess the only person who has ever seved was Kerry...and he refuses to make his records public. And no, I did not claim to still work for the military or anyone for that matter.

Actually, I am a consultant and an engineer, but only for computer systems and data networks nowadays. I am an aerospace engineer if that counts for anything but that job market sucks worse than IT does today. I left that stuff behind a while ago when I could no longer stand the graft, waste and the idea of building weapon systems for the government. The money in IT was also a whole lot better until recently also.

I saw in another post that your military job was to sit around in a hole somewhere waiting to push the button that would incinerate who knows how many people on the other side of the world. For a time I was willing to design the navigation systems for such weapons of mass destruction so I too have sinned, but at least I saw the error of my ways and picked a trade that could allow me to sleep soundly at night. I'm not even sure if I want to know what you are now doing for the military as a civilian besides propagandizing for your team on a porsche board.

I would be willing to put my decade and a half of education and experience up against yours any time. Veterans get no special treatment from me as you can see.

[CamB]

JP, that definition includes some incredibly minor percentage of the US population (asset wealthy, moderate income liberals). I don't know how relevant it is, although I guess since it probably includes Kerry himself there is a minor tie-in.

This actually all seems pretty simple to me after reading about the issues on this thread:

Bush is your guy if you like:

- low tax
- big guns
- having the world call you daddy

Kerry is your guy if you like:

- a bigger welfare state
- less guns
- having the world like you more

If you are already a liberal, you will read the "Bush" part and laugh, and read the "Kerry" part and nod your head. If you are a conservative, you'll read Bush and love it and Kerry and shake that head.

The real question, is how (other than using common sense - in which we all apparently differ in opinion) can we figure out if taxes are good or bad (ditto the other categories)? Are there actually any informed potential voters out there?

[fintstone]

Perhaps the following stories and many others just like them are the reasons why I know that Rumsfeld wants to get rid of the B1.

Interestingly enough, the articles you cite collaborate what I said.
and I quote my previous statement which you laughingly seem to think you refuted:
Rumsfeld advocated consolidating them to fewer bases and reducing the number so there would be enough parts to fly them.

I did not see a quote in a single one of your articles attacking Rumsfeld that indiacted that Rumsfeld wanted to get rid of the B-1. He did exactly what he said he would. Strangely enough, the articles also predicted he would be fired--shows how accurate they are. Guess anyone can write an article..if they have a clue about the subject or not. I saw an article claiming a kid was born with batwings in the National Inquirer too! ..Hey, your post is a great example of that!
This is what the AF says about the B-1. I'll bet they know how and why it was used better than your reporter:

The B-1B holds 43 world records for speed, payload, range, and time of climb. The National Aeronautic Association recognized the B-1B for completing one of the 10 most memorable record flights for 1994.

The B-1B was first used in combat in support of operations against Iraq during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998. In 1999, six B-1s were used in Operation Allied Force, delivering more than 20 percent of the total ordnance while flying less than 2 percent of the combat sorties. Eight B-1s were deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. B-1s dropped nearly 40 percent of the total tonnage during the first six months of OEF. This included nearly 3,900 JDAMs, or 67 percent of the total. All of this was accomplished while maintaining an impressive 79 percent mission capable rate.

Also, if you know anything about aircraft at all, you would realize that taking out fighter aircraft and SAMs is not something you do with a B-52. They are big, slow and have no defenses. Air-to-ground weapons were taken out the F-15s, F-16s, and stealth aircraft ..you know, the ones in the list of aircraft that Kerry voted against and you deemed uneeded.

[CamB]

The B-1B was first used in combat in support of operations against Iraq during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998. In 1999, six B-1s were used in Operation Allied Force, delivering more than 20 percent of the total ordnance while flying less than 2 percent of the combat sorties. Eight B-1s were deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. B-1s dropped nearly 40 percent of the total tonnage during the first six months of OEF. This included nearly 3,900 JDAMs, or 67 percent of the total. All of this was accomplished while maintaining an impressive 79 percent mission capable rate.

So they killed lots of people? Even civilians! Cool!

[fintstone]

Do you want pictures?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2001/11/11-28_index.htm

[CamB]

I bow in awe of the US' awesome firepower and targetting skills. Do they ever miss? Are the targets ever mis-identified?

Does it not count when military personnel are killed?

[350HP930]

Well, if you are going to argue that cutting the fleet by a third at the same time that they are looking to replace it all together is not an attempt to scrap that flying turd I don't what it will take to convince you.

Unfortunatly the reality of the world that we live in is that no system worth billions of dollars, no matter how bad it is, can be scrapped overnight.

The articles I posted above have made that abundantly clear.

I still have vivid memories of the numerous articles I read in periodicals like Aviation Week and Space Technology and Aerospace America in the late 80s and early 90s concerning the multitudes of design defects and system failures that gave the B1 feet one of the lowest readyness rates of any aircraft the military has ever had. Many have also crashed and killed servicemen due to everything from system failures to bird strikes.

As far as rummy's job goes, it just goes to prove that bush is not the only one who has benefitted greatly from 9/11.

I think the entire bush administration would already be looking for new jobs if they didn't have the ultimate distration to bamboozle the public with.

[nut11]

Fellus, let's keep this in perspective absent of reaction.