I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace.
--President Barack Obama, Dec 10, 2009
29 comments:
Words. Actions. Words. Actions.
Which one is more authoritative?
"What you do speaks so loudly I can't hear what you say."
Words: "For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. "
Actions: "President Obama promised he would win America friends where, under George W. Bush, it had antagonists. The reality is that the U.S. is working hard to create antagonists where it previously had friends.
That's one conclusion to draw from President Obama's decision yesterday to scrap a missile-defense agreement the Bush Administration negotiated with Poland and the Czech Republic."
And this:
"U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman lashed out Tuesday against anObama administration plan to slash funds for the missile defense shield program only a day after North Korea launched the longest-range missile it has ever developed.
The Connecticut independent, who caucuses with the Democrat Party but supported Sen. John McCain over President Barack Obama during the presidential campaign, attacked the cutbacks harshly as dangerous to both the United States and the allies it would bring under a missile shield.
“Cooperation on missile defense is now a critical component of many of our closest security partnerships around the world,” Lieberman wrote in a letter to the president. “We fear that cuts to the budget for missile defense could inadvertently undermine these relationships and foster the impression that the United States is an unreliable ally.
“Moreover, sharp cuts would leave us and our friends around the world less capable of responding to the growing ballistic missile threat,” stated the letter, first reported by The Hill."
Take a look at these words and compare them to the actions of raising the troop levels in AfPak...twice.
Compare these words to the fact that President Obama has run more drone attacks inside of Pakistan than President Bush did in three years.
These are facts, Ed. Actions that back up his words. Another fact is that you don't want President Obama to be a "tough guy." You will find any excuse to paint him as weak as that fits with your story...your belief system.
As far as your missile shield meme, any clue as to why he did that? And how does that relate to the situation in Iran?
Why don't you inform us why he did it Markadelphia? You always claim to know why people do all kinds of stuff.
"Take a look at these words and compare them to the actions of raising the troop levels in AfPak...twice."
Yes, he did that. It was good that he did so. But he dithered like… well. You slam Bush for taking 12 minutes to finish a book during 9/11. But Obama took 7 months to act! How are your math skills?
"Compare these words to the fact that President Obama has run more drone attacks inside of Pakistan than President Bush did in three years."
Correction: President Obama has unilaterally invaded an ally's airspace. Is this really the appropriate way to treat a friendly government?
"These are facts, Ed. Actions that back up his words."
SOME actions which back up SOME words. What was that quote you brought to our attention last week? Oh, that's right:
"the more emotionally involved we are with a belief the more likely it is that we will manage to ignore whatever facts or arguments might tend to undermine it."
Congratulations. Once again you're demonstrating that this is your approach. Observe:
"As far as your missile shield meme, any clue as to why he did that? And how does that relate to the situation in Iran?"
Meme? Are you saying that he didn't cancel the missile shield program?
When you consider that Iran has been actively working to build a nuclear bomb and the missiles to carry them, then there needs to be a defense against those missiles. That's why it matters.
As to why he cancelled the program, I suspect it's because of the generally anti-war stance he campaigned on. Remember, he promised to end the war in Iraq immediately upon taking office. He also promised to talk to these evil people "without preconditions". Why does he need a missile defense if he thinks they're not evil? The point is that you cannot claim "evil does exist in the world", then turn around and treat people who are obviously evil as if they were rational.
Of course, that's not all. He cancelled the F-22 Raptor program, is ignoring the terrorists' violations of the Geneva and Hague conventions, and has recently implemented new Rules of Engagement which give the terrorists additional advantages over our troops. Let's not forget his continual undermining of Israel in favor of terrorist organizations such as Hamas, bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia as if he was a subject, practically grovelling for the Japanese Prime Minister, and his world travelling "Apologize For America Tour", among other things.
Remember that thing you quoted about ignoring facts? Are you going to continue ignoring those facts?
"…you don't want… You will…your story…your belief system."
ROTFLMAO!!!!! Are you asking yourself those magic questions again? You know… those ones that let you PRETEND you can read my mind?
You claim to be a Christian. Tell me what this passage means:
"Do not judge, so that you won’t be judged. For with the judgment you use, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
(Matthew 7:1–2 HCSB)
Once again, you are so far off the mark that I must warn you against ever trying to make a living off such "mind reading" tricks, because you get it so wrong so often that you're actually worse than the law of averages. While even a broken clock is right twice a day, you aren't even right that often.
I EXPECT Obama to be weak because he PROMISED to be weak, as in Code Pink absolute pacifism. I'm PLEASED when he does something which is the right thing to do, even when it runs counter to his PROMISES and PAST ACTIONS.
But unlike you, I cannot cherry pick which facts to remember and which to forget. While he has done some things which I consider to be good, it's only prudent to take ALL the facts into consideration when making a judgement.
"Is this really the appropriate way to treat a friendly government?"
Yes, for a few reasons. One, they have essentially allowed us to run operations within their country and two, I agree with the essential point of the early days of the Bush Administration that if you harbor terrorists that attack our country, we will run operations in your country--ally or not.
"I suspect it's because of the generally anti-war stance he campaigned on."
No, it's because he wanted Russia on board with tougher sanctions and possible future military action. We still don't have China on board, either, and I'm sure you can understand why we don't want to piss them off.
"He cancelled the F-22 Raptor program"
I think you use the term "he" loosely. President Obama, Robert Gates, and much of the Pentagon (along with much of the Senate who aren't still fighting the Cold War) canceled it because it doesn't suit our needs now. In fact, that's being kind. It's a piece of shit that doesn't work in the rain for crying out loud. And that last bit is from a primary source.
"Let's not forget his continual undermining of Israel in favor of terrorist organizations such as Hamas, bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia as if he was a subject, practically grovelling for the Japanese Prime Minister, and his world travelling "Apologize For America Tour", among other things."
"I EXPECT Obama to be weak because he PROMISED to be weak, as in Code Pink absolute pacifism."
Ed, do you spend all day listening to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh? Talk about your emotional mind interfering with rational thought....sheesh. I can't comment on lines filled with such myopic thought.
"It's a piece of shit that doesn't work in the rain for crying out loud."
Still claiming "facts" that just aren't so.
Air Force Association Responds to WP F-22 Article
"Assertion: The F-22 is vulnerable to rain and other elements due to its stealthy skin.
Facts: The F-22 is an all-weather fighter and rain is not an issue. The F-22 is currently based and operating in the harshest climates in the world ranging from the desert in Nevada and California, to extreme cold in Alaska, and rain/humidity in Florida, Okinawa and Guam. In all of these environments the F-22 has performed extremely well."
Be sure to read the entire thing.
And finally compare the F-22's effectiveness to the F-15's and F-16's:
"Brenton (call sign "Gripper") has flown the F-16 for 20 years and has close to 4000 hours, including 750 hours of combat. He is also a former Weapons School instructor pilot at Nellis, the same program in which the 174th today is testing its mettle against the Raptor. He doesn't like to lose, but against the F-22 he has little choice. "Fighter pilots are competitive by nature. When the F-22 first became operational, most F-16 and F-15 pilots relished the challenge of going up against it," he says. "I know I did. That is, until I actually did it and discovered how humbling an experience it really was."
The F-22's manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, and the Air Force cite a 30:1 kill ratio between Raptors and their prey. That doesn't equate to one F-22 taking on dozens of enemies; the figure means that for every Raptor shot down, 30 opposing airplanes are expected to be killed. "The F-22 was not built to fight a fair fight," Brenton says."
A fighter which does not get shot down is far, FARmore cost effective than one which an enemy can shoot down.
Ed, I don't post here a lot but I just have to make this comment to you.
I am Mark's step brother and have been in the Air Force special forces for 9 years. I have served 3 tours in Afghanistan and 2 in Iraq. I am about to serve a fourth tour (voluntary) in Afghanistan.
The F-22 is not suited for our current military needs. As Mark has already stated, it has functionality issues in the rain. I know this because I've flown in one and almost died because it was raining. The F-35 is a much more suitable aircraft for what we are doing in Afghanistan for many reasons. It has a longer range and is carrier capable.
Most of the debate about the F-22 occurred without ever asking the people that actually have flown it any questions. That's pretty typical of the Pentagon.
Ben, would you be willing to point to a source or cite information confirming your anecdote?
Anon beat me to it. Ben, what happened during your flight?
As for Afghanistan, I wouldn't expect the F-22 to be particularly useful there. It was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter. In other words, it's designed to shoot down other fighters; something the terrorists are kinda short on.
I'll chime in as another (and former) fly guy.
The issue of the F-35 being carrier based is an important one. The F-22 is not carrier capable. Thus, they must remain on a a static base which is easier to bomb. With the F-35, you do lose some of the speed that the F-22 has but the fact that it can be launch from various mobile positions is more attractive strategically given our current conflict.
I can't talk too much about what happened to me. I hope you understand why. But I can show you this.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/10/airforce_F22_100409w/
The F-22 has a metal skin which causes all sorts of problems with moisture. That information has come out in some media outlets and wasn't supposed to so I don't want to say much more than that.
Iowa, your assessment is correct. When were you polishing your stick?
Folks, I have to run. I don't have much time to debate these days much less do anything else. Keep giving Mark shit. He's an asshole.
Palin in 2012!!!
...could someone provide something OTHER than the issue just supposedly advanced by Mark, and that actually links to data?
Ben,
I note that the article you linked doesn't say the problems were with the skin, but with water finding its way into the electronics. It also mentions that these types of problems are typical when a new platform rolls out, and that they've solved this particular issue.
As a computer programmer, I'm quite well aware that even after thorough testing, unexpected bugs in a system always pop up out in the field. If the F-35 doesn't have similar types of problems, it will be the first time ever.
I should also note that the previous article did mention that the skin of the F-22 requires constant maintenance, but that's to maintain its stealth effectiveness, not because of rain.
While I'm not an actual pilot, I have been an aircraft enthusiast all my life. It's normal for some planes to be designed only for runway use and some for carrier use. I can agree that being able to take off from a carrier definitely adds flexibility. However, I have to wonder what engineering tradeoffs are involved in making an aircraft carrier capable. For example, I know that the landing gear must be heavier than on a runway plane just to survive the impact with a moving deck, which would also require the structure around the landing gear to be heavier. It would also require stall speeds which are lower than needed for a runway plane, which would require a change to the wing's profile which would have to have some kind of impact on performance.
It comes down to this question: Would designing the F-22 for carrier work have hurt its ability to be the very best at its primary role? I don't actually know because that depends tremendously on the engineers' creativity and skill in managing the tradeoffs, but it certainly seems likely that it would have to have some impact.
BTW, I did a little digging and found my way to the Wikipedia article on the F-35. It states that the F-35 is four times more effective than all 4th generation fighters. While that's excellent, it doesn't match up to the 30:1 kill ratio seen by F-22 pilots in training.
Both planes are designed with different goals in mind, and I see them as complementary, not competing against each other.
Ed, here is that link that perhaps Ben was talking about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html
It does mention the metallic skin issue.
Ben, if you are still reading, I flew in the Air Force from 1978-1983...no real action but did have a lot of fun.
Romney in 2012!!
iowa kid,
I was aware the Washington Post had done that article. The first link I posted was the Air Force Association's response to that article. Here it is again for your convenience:
Air Force Association Responds to WP F-22 Article
The article Ben linked did not say that rain damages the skin.
F-22 was NOT canceled Ed. The decision was to not continue production over the current fleet numbers (due in part to the obscene cost growth in the program).
AF has an absurd obsession with fighter capability, to the exclusion of ground support, strategic bombing and the much more mundane aspects of logistics and transport. The fighter-jocks have been the heart of the senior officer corps and Gates (during both Bush and Obama admins) has been attempting to change that.
You can disagree with that if you will, but it is not a case of Obama partisanship or blind pacifism.
I'm not a pilot, nor even an aircraft enthusiast, but I think I can give you a couple of clues concerning the trade-offs involved in making an aircraft carrier capable.
From having served on a carrier and just listening to the scuttlebutt, I have formed a few impressions. While I won't guarantee their accuracy anymore than with any other scuttlebutt, for what it's worth, here it is.
Yes, the landing gear has to be heavier. That carrier deck looks steady as a table, but in reality it may be pitching up and down by 10 feet or more. If the pilot doesn't judge the moment just right, he lands on a deck that is not only moving, but rising to meet him as he drops.
That's not the worst of it. The nose wheel has to be strong enough to drag the entire aircraft by it from 0 to 250kt or so in 2 seconds or less when it's catapulted.
If memory serves an F-14 was around 62,000 lbs, and I think it was the heaviest carrier based aircraft. That's a lot of mass to yank by the nose wheel.
On the other end... I don't know what the stall speeds are, I'm sure they make them as low as they practically can... I think I've heard 150kt thrown around, but I can't promise.
So on that end, you have the same weight of aircraft (minus fuel and ammo used) being yanked by a tailhook to bring it from 150kt or so down to zero in under 2 seconds.
Given the nose wheel issue on the one end and the tailhook issue on the other, I'm fairly certain you end up with a slightly heavier airframe throughout. And from hearing pilots gripe, the typical compromise seems to be "short legs". They tend to be designed around the assumption that they will launch, climb to orbiting height, and then top off with fuel before going on any but the shortest of missions.
juris,
"due in part to the obscene cost growth in the program"
I have to say that I'm really surprised that you're just buying what the Washington Post (The New York Times South) is peddling without questioning their claims. Back to the Air Force Association's response:
"Assertion: The airplane is proving very expensive to operate with a cost per flying hour far higher than for the warplane it replaces, the F-15.
Facts: USAF data shows that in 2008 the F-22 costs $44K per flying hour and the F-15 costs $30K per flying hour. But it is important to recognize the F-22 flight hour costs include base standup and other one-time costs associated with deploying a new weapon system. The F-15 is mature and does not have these same non-recurring costs. A more valid comparison is variable cost per flying hour, which for the F-22 in 2008 was $19K while for the F-15 was $17K."
Furthermore, not only did Obama cancel the F-22 (yes, that's building new planes), but he also dissed it for a speech in Alaska. Bill Whittle and two others discuss the F-22 here. Be sure to watch it.
"AF has an absurd obsession with fighter capability, to the exclusion of ground support, strategic bombing and the much more mundane aspects of logistics and transport."
I've seen enough interservice sniping that I always take such claims with a grain of salt. Furthermore, isn't this a bit like accusing the Secret Service of having an absurd obsession with security? Air superiority is the Air Force's primary job.
Consider this. You cannot win a war without boots on the ground. That is the most important part of the mission. However, those boots on the ground cannot win if the enemy rules the skies. The side that has air superiority can move troops and supplies by air (helicopters, Osprey, cargo planes), engage in ground support (A-10, Apache, AC-130, F-35, etc.), strategic bombing (B-1, B-2. BTW, I think you're wrong about the AF ignoring this role), intelligence gathering (Predator), etc. In other words, air superiority is necessary for these other areas to be possible.
You complain that the Air Force ignores ground support. On the other hand, I've heard that the Army and especially the Marines have essentially told the Air Force to butt out of some of these roles because they prefer to do it themselves. In other words, they're not allowed to do certain types of ground support. Think about it. The Apache is Army. The Blackhawk is Army. The Osprey is Marines. But in areas where the Air Force does engage in ground support, my understanding is that they do quite well. For example, the A-10 and AC-130.
Doh!
That last post was me. I gotta watch which name I'm using on blogger. (That one is for a particular blog where there are real problems with Anonymous posters engaging deliberate obfuscation and trolling.)
One more point: Obama's cancellation of the F-22 is only one point of many in questioning whether Obama actually wants America to prevail in conflicts.
For example, the A-10 and AC-130.
OK, so why don't you tell me how many A-10 and AC-130 pilots have made it to senior leadership in the AF versus the number of fighter jocks (or even bomber pilots).
Again, the F-22 end was Gates decision in the Bush admin, and it is still his position in the Obama admin. Ed, you just aren't getting it that there is a colorable argument over the F-22; it is NOT the symbol of arch-appeasement that you are attempting to make it into (unless you are going to assert that the Bush admin was into the same thing). You really have no reason to make such a silly argument.
And I rest my case on their misplaced priorities with the aerial tanker procurement fiasco - which again has nothing to do with Obama (at least not yet!).
Oh, and Ed, I currently make my living inside Defense procurement, so I'm not just spouting bullshit or the WaPo party line.
When I complain about cost growth in a program, I have a very different insight into it then say M and the moonbat chorus. I know it isn't simple profiteering, but that it results from bad project management and a very broken acquisition process, not to mention Congressional meddling.
Actually, I'm a big proponent of defense spending. Just not of the military industrial complex. It did, after all, get us out of the Depression...more or less.
Actually, I'm a big proponent of defense spending. Just not of the military industrial complex.
I'm just amazed how someone can so easily and quickly contradict himself. Hell M you usually wait at least a few sentences to do so, sometimes even different posts or threads. But to contradict yourself in back to back sentences. Wow.
Then again, a corporation asking to do an inspection on your property is "force" being used against you. So maybe I should learn to lower my expectations.
Juris, I'm quite surprised that you don't know the difference between ordinary defense spending and the military industrial complex. One is good capitalism and one is war profiteering. Or, in many cases, making up a war to justify excess spending (see: fear).
The defense industry is a wonderful thing for this country. It creates jobs, fosters innovation, and protects our nation. The "sought influence" of the military industrial complex (as Ike warned us of in his farewell speech) is an extreme perversion of this industry...murdering people for profit, not protecting anyone or anything but their own greed, and, in one case, a coup d'etat.
One is good capitalism and one is war profiteering.
You just never let a dumb idea die, do you M? The whole M-I complex was cited by the outgoing President near the end of your Golden Age of "good capitalism". I guess it didn't exist at the time, and Ike was warning us about something that would exist some 30 to 50 years in the future. Sheesh.
I disagree. He was speaking of the present and it was pretty clear that President Kennedy didn't want to feed it any more. It's my opinion that this was the reason he was killed.
Again, I recommend watching the film "Why We Fight" (2005, d: Eugene Jarecki) as an example of how our defense industry has been perverted.
It's my opinion that this was the reason he was killed.
Well, now I know what you do with your spare tin foil.
Not to mention JFK was a strident cold warrior. You have read/heard his inaugural address, right?
Juris, I'm surprised that someone who is a gun enthusiast thinks that the JFK assassination is "tin foil." In looking at it from purely from the evidence and eyewitnesses, it's very clear what happened.
Add in NSA memo 263 and 273 and then things begin to get clearer. Kennedy wasn't quite the cold warrior that people think he was. In fact, his response to the Bay of Pigs incident and the Cuban Missile Crisis made outright enemies of many in the Pentagon who then viewed him as soft on communism.
I also find it amusing that someone as jaded and intelligent as you are can't mentally accept that coup d'etats can actually happen here and not just in banana republics...which, in all honesty, our country sort of was back in 1963.
Juris, I'm surprised that someone who is a gun enthusiast thinks that the JFK assassination is "tin foil."
Your theory of it is "tin foil" material. We don't know the full truth because the Warren Commission unconstitutionally sealed the records of the investigation. Then again, even all the evidence wouldn't dissuade people who are disposed to believing in conspiracies.
Post a Comment