On May 15, 1:00=A0pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
<artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 15, 2:15=A0pm, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 10:59=A0am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > <artygu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > On May 15, 12:15=A0pm, ScottW <Scott...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > 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
t=
he
> > > > > > > military and its industrial partners on Tuesday that
expensive=
, new
> > > > > > > conventional weapons must prove their value to current
conflic=
ts,
> > > > > > > marked by insurgency and terrorism, if they hope for a place
i=
n future
> > > > > > > budgets."
>
> > > > > > > =93Overall, the kinds of capabilities we will most likely
need=
in the
> > > > > > > years ahead will often resemble the kinds of capabilities we
n=
eed
> > > > > > > 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
pa=
rticular
> > > > > > > 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
miss=
ions
> > > > > > > similar to the current operations in Iraq or Afghanistan."
>
> > > > > > > "The defense secretary also criticized a budget process that
h=
e 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
f=
rom 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
p=
osition
> > > > > > > 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
p=
ower 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
Tai=
wan.
> > > > > > > There is a risk =97 but a prudent and manageable one.=94
>
> > > > > > =A0 Nothing is static. =A0How long will the risk in the Gulf,
th=
e Taiwan
> > > > > > Strait and the Korean Peninsula be "prudent and manageable"?
>
> > > > > Until our overstretched forces are out of Afghanistan and Iraq,
2p=
id.
> > > > > 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. =A0
>
> > > Um, 2pid, the fighting forces are *always* the smallest part of the
> > > deal. Think "logistics". If we're logistically tied up with a large
> > > effort elsewhere, it very much limits our abilities elsewhere. Duh.
>
> > The battle for Taiwan won't last longer than 5 days.
> > =A0If logistics come into play, you'll have already lost.
>
> We've already lost then, 2pid, as aircraft or naval forces cannot even
> get there without logistics. We'd have to divert from our main effort,
> which is Iraq.
BS, we have at most 1 or 2 carrier battle groups in the Persian gulf
at any one time.
Carrier Group 5 is based in Japan.
You remain, as always, full of ****.
ScottW
|
