Botnst,

I didnt say to disband the military... but you dont need an F-22 to fight guys in caves and tribal compounds. The point was that our existing force is fully capable of handling the task.

They didn't have the body armor due to poor planning. They were supposed to welcomed with flowers, remember? Like Hitler not sending enough overcoats to Russia, our prez didn't send enough Bprf vests to Iraq.

I would rather we spend our money on preparing for covert operations using highly mobile forces who destroy our enemies completely, then get the hell out. Our existing aircraft can be fitted with the any new technology. All's the new planes do is go faster and dodge radar better. 200 million per plane buys a lot of armored humvees.

Want a nice air show? Go to Lake Worth exit off 820 Northwest in
Ft.Worth TX, turn south on 199, turn right at second light Robert's cutoff, stop at park on cliff around first curve, that overlooks Lockheed plant. The Lockheed assembly line rolls nice new f-16s off the line in Ft. Worth everyday. When they come out the door, a pilot jumps in and flys the **** out of it. You get to see a pilot use about 20 ft of runway and then turn the nose up like a rocket ship. When he goes in to land, you'll get an jet engine haircut.

It's not a question of an "aging" fleet, its a question of whether we need to build the billion dollar infrastructure to produce a new design. Currently the f-16 and f-18s have no equal in the world. Whats the point?

The lingering and hanging around is better accomplished by Predator remote controlled aircraft. The video equipment on these lets the operator check to see if you brushed your teeth this morning before he kills you. These are cheap. Junk the spend-it-on the big stuff brasshat's wet dream stuff.

Kirk is right. Predator drones are the wave of the future. You heard it here first. Talk about bang for your buck!

Face recognition. Satellites. Electronic evesdropping. Economic warfare. Targeted assasinations. Surgical air strikes by pilotless aircraft. Predator drones. RF tracking devices. That's the war of the future. Bush and especially Cheney is nothing more than the old military industrial complex rearing its ugly head for one last time. That's why we are trying to do WWII in Iraq. We don't need anymore new airplanes, we don't need anymore big boats, we don't need anymore million man armies. We need huge investments in robotic warfare instead of big boatyards in Trent Lott's district. It would cost us half what we are spending now to maintain these cold war dinosaurs.

KV,
Stop wasting your breath on preaching to a bunch of relic old school military die hards still believe in brute force of yesteryears. My stance has been small but effective outfits to squash the militia/thugs that we have been dealing with. The day of B-52 and F-18A Super Hornet is over. Look at Bora Bora, what lesson have we gotten out of from the smart bombs and bunker busters?

__________________
95 R129
04 Infiniti G35.5 BS
10 X204

On top of investments already, what if a guy (militia) does not use cell phones covers his face and only moves at night?

I guess your hoping the military investment has Vining Computers in mind.

Kaddafi was a hundred years ago. Saddam was not part of a new style war on stateless enemies like al-quaeda, so I don't know what he has to do with it. His soldiers were a bunch of pussies whose prime tactical manuveur was retreat. Our prime manuver in Iraq is tell our guys to stand around and wait to get shot. We're not fighting a new style of war there-we're refighting Germany's invasion of France.

Posted by KirkVining: Kaddafi was a hundred years ago. Saddam was not part of a new style war on stateless enemies like al-quaeda, so I don't know what he has to do with it. His soldiers were a bunch of pussies whose prime tactical manuveur was retreat. Our prime manuver in Iraq is tell our guys to stand around and wait to get shot. We're not fighting a new style of war there-we're refighting Germany's invasion of France.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saddam's irrelevance to the issue of terrorism is the point, isn't it? Because George Bush said "Saddam Hussein" and "9/11" in the same sentence, repeatedly, there came a Pavlovian response from those who do not read, who do not seek other sources of information than the mainstream media.

Thus, you are correct. The new style of war we keep hearing about, against stateless enemies who almost always have the element of surprise on their side, requires radical new ways of thinking. The neo-cons have used an outdated mentality in dealing with the problem. Step 1 should have been (and still should be) to get at the roots of the grievances, real or imagined, that motivate people to strap high explosives to themselves and detonate. Step 2 should be a much different kind of military force, one that is smarter, not necessarily more powerful. Firepower is not our shortcoming--smarts is.

Joe B.

If that's the case tattoo yourself brown and convert to Islam.

Firepower is necessary used with smarts unfortunatly we've had our heads stuck in the sand for the last 20 years we have been paying flaky sources millions if not billions of dollars for lies.

Your statement "smarts is" correct but we don't have that option at this point so for now we have to settle for smart guys with guns, which are very effective there's about 10,000 dead terrorist that would back me up on that one.

I don't agree. Libya's trun around was the result of 20 yrs of UN sanctions and loss of oil markets. They just said uncle. We certainly didn't have our sights on them - they have been playing nice for a few years now in order to get back in the fold. Bush just copped the success of the UN here for his own propaganda and disinformation purposes as usual.

North Korea has gone nuclear in a big way because of the policies of the Bush administration. Iran will soon follow, if it hasn't got one already. When your enemies engage in "preemption" and name you as "evil" the smartest thing to have is an atomic bomb. As a result, the "big army" solution to these two threats is now gone. Once a nation has gone nuclear, the only defense is mutual terror.

So far, the "military campaign", which it is not, against al-queda has been a failure. Like any guerilla movement, they have defeated us by surviving. We also handed them the equivalent of a military victory by violating the Genava Convention and torturing prisoners, swelling their ranks with new recruits and insuring the sympathy of local populations, both necessary for stateless terrorists to successfully operate. Both results show an essentially failed Deptment of Defense.

Inspite of all failures, we fool ourselves into thinking we have actually done something about terrorism, by pointing to Iraq, which is a war that has nothing to do with terrorism, except of course to produce more recruits for al-Queda. It is a blantant lie for George Bush to go on television, as he did two weeks ago, and tell us we are killing and fighting terrorists in Iraq. We are killing idigenoeus insurgents, members of the Shiite group who were supposed to be our allies, who don't want us occupying their country. They are attacking our military units. Under international law they are not considered terrorists - it is shear propaganda to say they are and is doublespeak bull**** used by Bush to confuse the American populace.

If your looking for a new kind of war, you need a new kind of leadership. These guys are losing this one and need to be kicked out. The only thing they are good at is propaganda.

And your point is? http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/10/libya.saudi/index.html.

__________________
95 R129
04 Infiniti G35.5 BS
10 X204