On May 15, 9:48=A0am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
<artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 15, 11:34=A0am, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 7:47=A0am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > <artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > ...so consistently? LOL!
>
> > > "Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates issued a clear warning to the
> > > military and its industrial partners on Tuesday that expensive, new
> > > conventional weapons must prove their value to current conflicts,
> > > marked by insurgency and terrorism, if they hope for a place in
future=
> > > budgets."
>
> > > =93Overall, the kinds of capabilities we will most likely need in
the
> > > years ahead will often resemble the kinds of capabilities we need
> > > today,=94 he added."
>
> > > [i.e. The cold war is over, 2pid. Just like I said. LOL!]
>
> > > "Those comments are certain to alarm advocates of the newest
> > > generations of high-tech and high-cost weapons programs, in
particular=
> > > the Army=92s Future Combat Systems and the Air Force=92s F-22
advanced=
> > > warplane. Both have come under the scrutiny of Pentagon budget
> > > officers questioning whether either would be required for missions
> > > similar to the current operations in Iraq or Afghanistan."
>
> > > "The defense secretary also criticized a budget process that he said
> > > results in the production of fewer, but more expensive, war****ps,
> > > warplanes and armored vehicles."
>
> > > [i.e. So we'll need more A-10s and AH-64 Apache Longbows, and larger
> > > quantities of less-expensive weaponry, kind of almost exactly like
> > > I've been saying all along, 2pid. The F-22 is an anachronism from
the
> > > cold war.]
>
> > > "To be sure, the defense secretary is set to step down at the end of
> > > the Bush administration, and thus is not expected to be in a
position
> > > to write his strategic view into any but the next budget. Thus, the
> > > services and industry may seek to push through the programs Mr.
Gates
> > > said should be scrutinized."
>
> > > [i.e. There is no shortage of boneheads such as yourself. LOL!]
>
> > > "The military, he declared, =93has ample and untapped combat power
in
> > > our naval and air forces, with the capacity to defeat any =97
repeat,
> > > any =97 adversary who committed an act of aggression, whether in the
> > > Persian Gulf, on the Korean Peninsula or in the Straits of Taiwan.
> > > There is a risk =97 but a prudent and manageable one.=94
>
> > =A0 Nothing is static. =A0How long will the risk in the Gulf, the
Taiwan=
> > Strait and the Korean Peninsula be "prudent and manageable"?
>
> Until our overstretched forces are out of Afghanistan and Iraq, 2pid.
> That's the reason there's any risk at all. Can't you read? LOL!
BS, the forces that are in play in Afghanistan are hardly the forces
that will be needed to operate in the Taiwan strait. You're on crack.
>
> Duh.
>
> > How long will it take to make it prudent and manageable again should
> > we let that apparently acceptable status slip away?
>
> It's "prudent and manageable" *now*, 2pid. There is no "again".
> Nothing has "slipped away".
It inevitably will if we stand pat. Nothing is static.
ScottW
|
