posted on June 25, 2001 01:30:53 AM new
A letter to the editor:
We might take a lesson, as should he, from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's recommendation that the B-1 bomber be dropped from Air Force inventory. The B-1 was a
$100 Billion program that was the star of Reagan's defense build-up, after Carter had dropped the plane. Plagued by problems, the B-1 has spent almost all of its service life grounded - and not just individual planes, the entire 100 plane fleet. It has been used exactly once, a couple of years ago in the Balkans. Now Rumsfeld wants to scrap it. $100 Billion dollars down the drain. Ya know, $100 Billion there, $100 Billion here, pretty soon you're talking about real money. Which suggests the lesson Rumsfeld should learn here; the administration's missile defense system will probably cost at least this much, if not two or three times the amount. And as every test of the elementary technology of the system has so far failed or been rigged,
we have every reason to expect the B-1 will seem like a paragon of reliability in contrast. More hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars cycling through the major GOP donor defense contractors, without adding an iota to the country's security and defense. But given the example of the B-1, maybe we can assume that's not the point. --Kent, 6/24/01
posted on June 25, 2001 01:32:34 AM new
Make it two:
"An intersting idea being floated in progressive and Democratic circles is to march on Washington, and collectively Moon the White House while Bush is home. Or, if you prefer, call it the "Million Moon March." Much thanks go out to our friends in Sweden for this idea. Even the corporate media will have to cover THIS. Get the word out. Someone should take the reigns and organize this event. And...letr's hope we can recruit the international pipefitters and plumbers unions into this crusade. They won't even have to, officially, pull down their pants! --PB, 6/23/01
posted on June 25, 2001 01:34:03 AM new
No, three:
Having just completed my MBA a couple years ago, I have to comment on Dubya's ability to coast through Harvard. Business schools that focus on "group work" have entered a pact
with the Devil: many times the laziest and least talented among our work groups would simply fail to contribute, realizing that the group performance determined our individual grades.This
means that an individual may make no contribution at all toward the final work product or group presentation and still receive full credit and a grade equal to that of the hardest working
member of the group. More than once student work groups carried deadheads who should have been flunked out or expelled for bad faith.
Free riders know that since you succeed or fail as a group, individual nonperformance passes unnoticed by the course instructor, who remains ignorant of behavior within the group. Only
candid evaluations of each student by group colleagues will ferret out the bastards who know all to well how to "work the system" rather then do the work itself. Even when students are
forthcoming with reports of slovenly and dishonest colleagues, faculty avoid confronting the bad apples and give them good grades anyway. When my group complained to the instructor
about the no-show/no-work colleague, he waffled by claiming he had reported grades to the registrar--before our group evaluations were due.
"So, if anybody wonders why or how Bush could sleaze his way through Harvard's B-school, I'm betting that he schmoozed his colleagues and dodged the bullets whenever they were
fired. I'm also betting that most of his colleagues figured it was easier just to ignore the lazy sod and get the work done without him. After all, they might figure it was good experience for the day they had to carry the boss's son in a real workplace. And Bush, of course, knew he would be the boss's son someday. It was his destiny.
And now he's our Pezident, restoring dignity and integrity to the White House!" --Jon, Springfield, Ohio, 6/22/01
posted on June 25, 2001 05:16:15 AM new
And you mean to say that a group like that will be so collectivly gutless that nobody will corner the lazy one in some men's room and explain that if he doesn't crank some work out he is going to have an accident that will mar his pretty face?
posted on June 25, 2001 07:06:55 AM new
It's less work to simply carry people like that sometimes, just as it's easier sometimes for a parent to ignore misbehaving children.
posted on June 25, 2001 08:07:12 AM new
Mooning should be easy for the Democrats, since they are quite good at showing their butts. It seems natural for them and is their answer to most problems.
posted on June 25, 2001 08:42:00 AM new
Re: First letter.
Something I do know about.
Boondoggle? Hardly. It's called deterrence. A costly, yet highly effective tool employed by superpowers. The B-1's prime mission is nuclear, just as the 550 ICBM's across the northern US that are the nations only on-alert nuclear systems. Will they ever be used for what they were intended? IMHO, no. Do they serve their purpose? Hell yes.
And please note the 3rd letter offers exactly no proof of any "coasting" done by the current President. I guess I could write a letter about any other Harvard grad and say they're lazy as well and folks will accept it as true?
posted on June 25, 2001 09:49:41 AM new
Not much deterrence in a plane that won't get off the ground. We've got a couple of those around here-kids play on them.
posted on June 25, 2001 10:14:11 AM new
The nature if the B-1 system is such that it is not really usable for a conventional combat mission because the risk of a billion dollar aircraft for any target less than a city or military base does not make sense.
The only real use for them would be to target military formations and mobile targets worthy of nuclear munitions in a campaign that required several hundres sorties over a couple weeks. That need pretty much disappered with the economic collapse of the Soviet union, and the possibility of an all out strategic war with the Soviet military.
The possibility of having such a conflict with the Chinese is still real however.
posted on June 25, 2001 10:58:04 AM new
Except that unless Bush's apparently deliberate provocations of Russia work to bring them to install or reinstall multiple warhead delivery systems no country has the capability to reach our shores. North Korea has the most advanced but still in development program which if finished might be able to lob one into the northern reaches of Alaska.
The 'rogue nations' hyperbole is a myth propogated by dumbya in order to obtain extraordinarily liberal (good word for lucrative) defense contracts for his buds.
You cannot trust everything you read regarding countries' capabilities and their range. And no, obviously, I cannot provide a link to give substance to this statement.
Russia and China can both hit CONUS, and even using MSNBC's statements as truth, you must look at potential American targets on Guam and other US bases in Asia. Not to mention the presence in South Korea.
I do know the US military policy/strategy does not only include the Continental US, but our presence abroad and our Allies.
posted on June 25, 2001 11:56:58 AM newNot much deterrence in a plane that won't get off the ground.
Ask the residents of Wichita KS about the roar they hear overhead many-a-day. While the B-1 has been grounded before, it is not the dinosaur that the letter to the editor claims. Both the F-15/16 have been grounded for various safety concerns, just have commercial planes. It is common in all aspects of aviation. While it is true you'll see B-1s in museums and the place where kids play on them, I can look across the street from my office and see an F-15 on display, the forefront agressor in the aresenal.
posted on June 25, 2001 12:36:11 PM new"And no, obviously, I cannot provide a link to give substance to this statement."
In other words, your previous posts and your rank as a captain in the US Air Force are given little crediablility, simply beause you don't provide a link to an outside source?
deuce, I think you take the value of URL's a little bit too far.
Not at all. I think anyone can find a link providing their POV on the web. I simply stating as certain folk on here find posts near worthless (IMHO) if not providing background info. In fact, you stated in another thread:
They complain that this messageboard is full of "Liberals" who don't know what they're talking about, even though we provide them with URLs to reliable sources. Only JLPiece has had the common sense to try to provide contrary URLs to dispute our findings.
While it is another topic, you are the one talking about the common sense to place URLs.
I made my earlier statement that possibly contradicts a major news agency, if you don't why I cannot post supporting evidence, then I don't know what to tell you.
If you feel I'm given little credibility, you are free to refrain from reading my posts.
posted on June 25, 2001 02:56:48 PM new
The D.E.W. line cost a fortune to install and operate. I can't see how they can justify that in retrospect as not a single incoming Soviet ICBM was detected.
Many times a defensive/offensive expenditure becomes unnecessary because of changing technology and world politics. That doesn't mean it was never a necessity or wise precaution. Did the B-58 ever get used in actual combat? Has any of the Ohio class submarine ever been used in actual combat?
posted on June 25, 2001 03:00:49 PM new
deuce, I think that you took that wrong. I was not stating that your posts are to be given little crediablity simply because you do not provide a link to back it up. It was the opposite. Since the topic was (partly) about the B-1 Bombers, an element of the US Air Force, I hardly would have expected you to provide any URLs concerning your opinion; nor do I think that one always has to provide a URL for everything that they state. The fact of the matter is, is that some posters seem to feel that if you don't provide a URL to a reputable outside source, your POV is just so much hot air. All that ends up happening is a War of the URLs and everyone being left to comment on how accurate the URL's information is. I see a request for a URL from someone is because they want to know more about the point, rather than to go verify that the point is correct or has any merit to it. We forget that this is a place to disseminate opinions as well as facts. It IS nice to be able to provide a URL to a reputable source that backs up what you have to say, such hard data is not easily to come by.
And I do stand behind my statement on URLs. For ever post you find about me being a buffoon as a Republican, I can find one about the left (although you do have a bit more ammo than I currently). URLs are nice to have, but man, there's so much crap as well.
Crap is in the eye of the beholder, but be that as it may be, there is a thing about URL requirements that probably should not be forgotten. When I began posting information which flew in the face of the republican line there was such a hew and cry from thhem that if it could have been I'm sure that it would have been heard in the land of Oz. "Where are you getting that?? Where's the link??!!" they all hollered, and denounced with very strong terms not just the information I posted but me personally as well. Uaru can verify that for he was at the forefront of all of that activity. When I, in response, began to post links with nearly each post then they all attacked now the source as well as the information and myself, again personally. So if you now wish to decry the practice of linking to supporive data you've only your own collective selves to blame for it.
Duece,
It is your business, your career, to buy into the company line. You are a company man. Through certain hard lessons I've come to know that I cannot believe anything that my government says. We cannot agree.
As to loud noises in Iowa, you're right--that IS where the last flying B-1 crashed. A Spruce Goose of Nuclear capable bomb delivery systems.
By no means was that posted in your direction. Au contraire, your URLs are normally right on, to reputable sites, which makes it difficult (not impossible though) to refute.
I'm sure you'll agree (mind reading yet again ) that there's a lot of stuff on the internet that is not quite factual. That's all I meant by it.
And while you say I'm a company man, you are most correct; that does not mean that I do not at times disagree with some of the directions my country and sevice heads. I do find it difficult to agree with the statement that Through certain hard lessons I've come to know that I cannot believe anything that my government says. We cannot agree. , but of course I've never walked a mile in your shoes, and perhaps would feel quite differently about it if I could.
That's what's great about boards like this and classy posters. I've learned a lot. I wouldn't normally look at some of the URLs that have been posted on this board.
And I think the Spruce Goose would go to the F-16, this plane crashes more than any other out there, but of course there's quite a few more of them in the inventory.
posted on June 25, 2001 06:34:41 PM new
[i]"And I apologize for my tone. Long day here."/i]
Nada problemo!
"For ever post you find about me being a buffoon as a Republican"
May I please deviate this little bit to state the facts as succinctly as possible for my position? Here:
Why Do We Vote For Who Will Be President?
I think that we do it to keep power in the hands of the voters (the people). That, as far as I have ever heard, was the main purpose for Democracy.
Why Are People Mad About Republicans Who voted For Bush?
Look, it was obvious to everyone that Dubya has the mind of a twelve-year-old. That makes him incompetent to be put in that office. To vote him in is to vote in a puppet regime; because someone BEHIND THE SCENES will have to be running things -- persons known and unknown, all of whom were never voted for that position.
That makes it a flat denial of Democracy and paves the way for a Tyranny.
Now that may make some voters do a Happy Dance to think that Democracy was denied so that an extremist agenda could be pushed through past the Will of the People.
Moreover, if this is not to become the way of things in future elections, then those who love Democracy and hate Tyranny will have to do something about it.
In the non-extremist liberal approach, I advocate a peaceful solution ... one where the military not get involved, as in the One-Percenters aka WWI Veterans/MacArthur. We have tried to vote out individuals from either reigning political party with little success. We have tried in 1992, 1996 and in 1999 to implement a third party, but the reigning political parties hold all of the cards, make all of the Rules, pass all of the regulations -- and do it to keep themselves in power, all against the Will of the People.
Now, without restating reasons why, but I feel that Democracy is about to completely fall in this country, if it hasn't already. There is, but one weak spot left to reassert a Democratic agenda and that is to defeat the will of those voters who placed tyranny over Democracy. I believe that most of those voters were not fully aware of the consequences for their voting actions, or just how precarious our fragile Democracy has really taken a hit. The plan, therefore, is to use whatever means necessary to prevent them from voting in a non-Democratic way at the next elections. In my estimation, simply slinging around the facts hasn't made a dent with republican voters. It is going to take shoving their faces right into the mess that they created to make them aware of how dangerous their position to the liberty of everyone in this country is. If I have to grandstand and get In-Your-Face and tell you to Be Ashamed and be made to take responsibility for the non-Democratic government that they voted into office, then that's what it takes. While you may be swayed by the arguments and turned off by the rhetoric, it HAS gotten your attention that you have helped our Democracy come perilously close to permanent damage!
So, if you have a better way to convince Republican Voters to not do such a poor job in the next election, other than how I am trying to do it, please let me know your effective method for doing it.
posted on June 26, 2001 07:17:01 PM new
Well, well - I diodn't hink that they would be any response to that. Not a peep. So now, those of you who voted for Bush PLEASE TAKE YOUR PUNISHMENT??
posted on June 26, 2001 07:46:30 PM new
How can I respond to this? I cannot, for I simply do not understand it at all. Ramble this and that, 12-year old, etc. The same things you've posted over & over. And now you're trying to associate Bush with parents drowning their children.
posted on June 26, 2001 08:00:13 PM new
I didn't comment, but I did think of a movie with a classic scene. One big atta boy for the reader that can identify the movie this came from.
Ahh, but the strawberries that's... that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with... geometric logic... that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I'd have produced that key if they hadn't of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officers...
posted on June 27, 2001 11:50:56 AM new"And now you're trying to associate Bush with parents drowning their children."
It is the Tao. The Tao is all. We are One with the Tao.
edited to add:
"As a forum participant Jekyll and Hyde always plays by the rules and is consistently cordial and helpful - a model netizen, until one day he comes completely uncorked and lashes out without warning. His unanticipated thunderbolts can temporarily rout even the sturdiest Warriors, and it often takes some time for his stunned opponents to mount a counter attack. Jekyll and Hyde's sudden behavioral change may result from a psychotic episode, PMS, a downturn in the market, a surprise visit by the in-laws - or a session of hard drinking...
) that there's a lot of stuff on the internet that is not quite factual. That's all I meant by it.
