EPTokay maybe literal scrap is kind of ambiguous but here's the clarification lol
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3419
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
okay maybe literal scrap is kind of ambiguous but here's the clarification lol | ||
|
Ravianna26
United States44 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23230 Posts
On March 22 2016 08:13 oneofthem wrote: ive never said they need to scrap the a10 right now. it is just terribly outdated. okay maybe literal scrap is kind of ambiguous but here's the clarification lol The argument is almost 20 years old so no clarification is needed. It's just wrongheaded rhetoric that is used to carry water for the MIC. Had we updated the a-10 instead of going the f-35 route, the soldiers would have had what they needed when they needed it, instead of promises about future tech solutions, a missing leg, ptsd and not enough money to care for them when they get back or just a funeral. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the f-35 is part of a doctrine of war that aims to cripple the other side's ability to defend important targets. it's useful as force projection/deterrence against states that do have such important targets. so really occupation of enemy territory against insurgent forces is not part of our warfighting agenda. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
I'm just saying there are logical borders, and then there are the 1967 borders. People acknowledge that the post WWII borders with most of the rest of the ME, the Soviet hegemony states like Czechoslovakia, etc were poorly drawn, why not this one instance? Its like having an English city in Normandy. On March 22 2016 08:12 frazzle wrote: Or Israel could just accept the 1967 borders, perhaps keeping the Golan heights. They have no strategic need for the West Bank or Gaza from what I understand. Allow the Palestinians to have their state and to share Jerusalem as a capital, and then provide aid to the Palestinian State for a period of time in exchange for a refusal of the right of return. Who knows for sure, but this could easily defuse most of the radicalism surrounding the Jewish state. Yes, they would need to buck it up and resist the urge to retaliate to the inevitable saboteurs who would fire rockets still for awhile. In any case, this is easily a 4th alternative, and is one supported by many ME states as well as the Israeli left. It won't really work. Gaza and West Bank should not be one country as they are not contiguous, and Gaza needs land to be donated by Egypt to work properly. They do need portions of the West bank, besides the fact that that river/Jordan Rift Valley is the most logical dividing lines between Isreal and the states to the east, the states, there is also the part where the West bank contains significant highlands that overlook large portions of the coast. Also, Jerusalem as a joint city is a pipedream. International city works better than that (and that barely works). | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On March 22 2016 09:07 oneofthem wrote: the israeli border can be drawn every which way and still be 'workable' if there is no ongoing hostility. reducing hostility as a long term goal is more important than covering some piece of desert if your concern is viability of israel as a state in the long term. you don't understand, those brown people do not deserve this holy sand! | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 22 2016 08:22 GreenHorizons wrote: The argument is almost 20 years old so no clarification is needed. It's just wrongheaded rhetoric that is used to carry water for the MIC. Had we updated the a-10 instead of going the f-35 route, the soldiers would have had what they needed when they needed it, instead of promises about future tech solutions, a missing leg, ptsd and not enough money to care for them when they get back or just a funeral. But new shiny toys. Also, obviously, the huge military budget needs to be spent, too. Doesn't matter if the F-35 is a pointless plane, ridiculously over-engineered and over-priced (and partially performing worse than existing planes). There's plenty of examples in history where that turned out to be idiotic. Starting from the tiger tank (over engineered, unreliable), to the F-117 which was less overpriced, but also over-engineered and unreliable. The A-10 has one thing going for it. It's proven. It saved (and took) countless lifes. It's ugly as fuck, but so is the F-35. And, not to underestimate, remember the trumpets of jericho in WW2? The "dragon roar" of the A-10 serves the same purpose. The F-35 pretty much is a fixed-wing RAH-66. Not even interesting in theory, but a total waste of money. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On March 22 2016 09:07 oneofthem wrote: the israeli border can be drawn every which way and still be 'workable' if there is no ongoing hostility. reducing hostility as a long term goal is more important than covering some piece of desert if your concern is viability of israel as a state in the long term. Somewhat, just as every border could be (although there are other very real factors such as socioeconomic status, language, etc). However, that is irrational, as you could then just as easily argue the new Israel should be no land or all of the land, and it would work swimmingly given there is no ongoing hostility! The point of drawing rational borders is to minimize the costs of security during the period of time when hostility is being reduced. Logically, the best way to do that would be: Israeli border along the westernmost ridge-line currently in the West Bank territory, Golan Heights to Israel, Gaza gets parts of Sinai from Egypt and Israel forming a state, and the West Bank has mountains in the West and the river in the East as its borders. Otherwise you can do a Korean-style DMZ, which is basically half the West Bank's area. So that is worse for everyone. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 22 2016 10:04 oneofthem wrote: this is some high comedy but please stop In case you're talking to me, feel free to counter any statement i made. But i assume you can't (clearly, since nothing i said was untrue), so this doesn't even do as comedy. Just rather lame. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18827 Posts
After meeting with President Raul Castro today, President Obama said in an exclusive interview with ABC News' David Muir that he believed the Cuban leader "truly" wanted change in the island nation and that Cuba would become "more prosperous" in the future. "For 50 years, they have used American aggression or interests in regime change as the excuse for why they had to guard against dissent inside of Cuba. ... As normalization occurs, that excuse is taken away," Obama said. "What I indicated to him is that we can't force changes on Cuba -- but what we can do and will continue to do is to stand up to the rights that we consider to be universal." Today, Obama attended bilateral talks with Castro, after an official welcoming ceremony at the presidential palace in the capital of Havana. The president's full day of events in Cuba marked the first time a sitting U.S. president had visited the island nation since Calvin Coolidge arrived by boat 88 years ago. "I believe that President Castro truly wants change," Obama told Muir today. "I do not believe that President Castro wants to upend the Union Party or the system they have. And I think that's going to require a transition that happens over the course of the next generation of Cubans." The US commander in chief said that in talks today he'd been clear with Castro that he would not "compare apples and oranges" when discussing the US and Cuba. "Whenever they hear criticism of the United States, their argument is that 'OK, we may be, in your view, short on some democratic practices. On the other hand, you guys still engage in the death penalty or racial discrimination.' ... They'll tick off a list," Obama said. "Here's the point. ... We should not use our shortcomings as a way of deflecting the kinds of repression that happens here." He said that in his conversations with Castro, he'd even referred to his own experiences as US president, with protesters demonstrating outside of the White House. Obama Says Cuban Leader Castro 'Truly Wants Change' | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 22 2016 10:17 m4ini wrote: In case you're talking to me, feel free to counter any statement i made. But i assume you can't (clearly, since nothing i said was untrue), so this doesn't even do as comedy. Just rather lame. there are public resources available to dispel your various delusions. i'm not going to do it for you. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 22 2016 10:25 oneofthem wrote: there are public resources available to dispel your various delusions. i'm not going to do it for you. Yeah, .. Right. Lets see, because i'm in the mood to point out your non-knowledge. Lets start with the F-117. Out of 7 machines lost, only one was shot down. The rest all had technical failures up to losing a wing midflight. That certainly sounds reliable. Tiger tank, i don't even know what's there to argue, you won't find a single source in the internet stating it was a reliable tank. More tanks were lost to failures in the drivetrain than due to the enemy. What else? The F-35 underperforming? Not my words, but the words of an actual test pilot who flew the machine. You know, infinitely more knowledge than you. Or me, but i'm going with what he said. And it was said in regards to something that can't be changed by software. It doesn't retain energy in fight, and it has a very limited pitch rate. Both inferior to the F-16. He went as far as calling it dead meat in the air. Not to mention that pilots barely can move their heads in the cockpit because of the bulky helm - also stated by testpilots. And that is publicly available, so instead of throwing out stupid oneliners, i'd urge you to read up on it. I don't think i really need to go into everything the A-10 does, and how well it does it. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On March 22 2016 10:40 LegalLord wrote: Watch out, it's treason to praise the A-10. That can't be real though. You'd need to sue a lot of people btw, i've yet to meet a single soldier not being ecstatic when he talks about the ground support of a warthog. “We don’t have enough money to fund all the things that we currently have in our force structure,” Welsh said. Especially that. The F-35 will be heaps more expensive to maintain, that doesn't even include R&D+Manufacturing. | ||
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 22 2016 10:37 m4ini wrote: Yeah, .. Right. Lets see, because i'm in the mood to point out your non-knowledge. Lets start with the F-117. Out of 7 machines lost, only one was shot down. The rest all had technical failures up to losing a wing midflight. That certainly sounds reliable. Tiger tank, i don't even know what's there to argue, you won't find a single source in the internet stating it was a reliable tank. More tanks were lost to failures in the drivetrain than due to the enemy. What else? The F-35 underperforming? Not my words, but the words of an actual test pilot who flew the machine. You know, infinitely more knowledge than you. Or me, but i'm going with what he said. And it was said in regards to something that can't be changed by software. It doesn't retain energy in fight, and it has a very limited pitch rate. Both inferior to the F-16. He went as far as calling it dead meat in the air. Not to mention that pilots barely can move their heads in the cockpit because of the bulky helm - also stated by testpilots. And that is publicly available, so instead of throwing out stupid oneliners, i'd urge you to read up on it. I don't think i really need to go into everything the A-10 does, and how well it does it. every one of your points is either a misrepresentation or wild conjecture. do you know what an airframe control law test is? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18827 Posts
On March 22 2016 10:42 Kipsate wrote: How much sway does Israel policy still hold over the election? (generalizing here). Apart from the money and media, Jews happened to live in a lot of swing states in the past, being a minority that people could cater too. Is the influence of them/Israeli still strong on the US elections? AIPAC tends to signpost Christian Conservative/Israeli influence rather than Jewish, as odd as that may sound. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
| ||
