Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Not every day you get to trash $1.2 billion

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Not every day you get to trash $1.2 billion
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:13 am Post subject: Not every day you get to trash $1.2 billion

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080223/ts_nm/usa_bomber_crash_dc_4

Quote:

HAGATNA, Guam (Reuters) - A U.S. B-2 stealth bomber crashed at Andersen Air Force Base in Guam just after taking off but the two pilots on board ejected safely, the U.S. Air Force said.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:35 pm Post subject:

That's $4 for every American man, woman, and child.

jkelly80

Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:14 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

That's $4 for every American man, woman, and child.

Facts, figures, scope? You must hate our freedom.

cbclark4

Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:56 pm Post subject:

Looks like I'll be drinking two less beers this weekend.

OneWayTraffic

Joined: 14 Mar 2005

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:12 pm Post subject:

jkelly80 wrote:

Kuros wrote:

That's $4 for every American man, woman, and child.

Facts, figures, scope? You must hate our freedom.

It's hard to imagine why the country that spends as much on weapons as the rest of the world put together, needs these bombers for freedom.

America could benefit from spending less on the military, and using the savings to reduce the debt and deficits, a far worse threat to 'freedom.'

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:02 pm Post subject:

OneWayTraffic wrote:

It's [not so] hard to imagine...

how nearly any thread treating the United States will very quickly become a forum for preachy posters to pontificate and lecture.

OneWayTraffic

Joined: 14 Mar 2005

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:26 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

OneWayTraffic wrote:

It's [not so] hard to imagine...

how nearly any thread treating the United States will very quickly become a forum for preachy posters to pontificate and lecture.

I think it was a fair response to the ridiculous freedom non sequitur. Stealth bombers have nothing to do with freedom, and everything to do with penetrating enemy airspace. America has the worlds most formidable armed forces, by a longshot. This is far beyond the capability required for freedom, and more along the lines of 'being a superpower.'

Nothing wrong with being a superpower, but that's got nothing to do with freedom.

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:40 am Post subject:

OneWayTraffic wrote:

Gopher wrote:

OneWayTraffic wrote:

It's [not so] hard to imagine...

how nearly any thread treating the United States will very quickly become a forum for preachy posters to pontificate and lecture.

How do you remain a superpower?

caniff

Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 6:05 am Post subject:

"Speak softly and carry a big stick." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_Diplomacy (Bush screwed up the first half of that policy.)

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 12:33 pm Post subject:

OneWayTraffic wrote:

I think it was a fair response to the ridiculous freedom non sequitur. Stealth bombers have nothing to do with freedom...

I think you missed Ms. Kelly's attitude and tone.

OneWayTraffic wrote:

and everything to do with penetrating enemy airspace.

Precisely. So what?

A plane crashed. This happens not infrequently in routine military ops. In this case, it was a rather expensive plane. In any case, what does this have to do with being for or against America? And why do you state "penetrating enemy airspace" as if it were an accusation?

Finally, most realists assume that armed forces protect nation-states' independence and interests in world affairs. So yes stealth aircraft have something to do with "freedom." Just ask the Kuwaiti govt...

OneWayTraffic

Joined: 14 Mar 2005

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:17 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

OneWayTraffic wrote:

I think it was a fair response to the ridiculous freedom non sequitur. Stealth bombers have nothing to do with freedom...

I think you missed Ms. Kelly's attitude and tone.

Ok.

Quote:

OneWayTraffic wrote:

and everything to do with penetrating enemy airspace.

That's simply what they're for. It's got nothing to do with being for or against America; it's got a lot to do with figuring out the obvious point that American military expenditures far outweigh those required for sustaining American freedom. American freedom would be better served by balancing the budget, and obtaining energy independence for example.

Quote:

Finally, most realists assume that armed forces protect nation-states' independence and interests in world affairs. So yes stealth aircraft have something to do with "freedom." Just ask the Kuwaiti govt...

Obviously Kuwait has reason to be grateful that they're in a immensly important region. America seems to be a little slow in invading Zimbabwe, or any one of a half dozen other countries, as their interests don't lie there.

Which is my whole point. Most of the development costs for the B2s were sunk costs back when the Soviet Union disintergrated. Keeping the program at a (90%) reduced level may be justified, as marginal costs are outweighed by the marginal benefits of having a unique capability. But it's increasingly obvious that the real threat to American security lies less in the possibility of invasion, and more in the IOUs that you're writing at an increasing rate, and in the fact that you are reliant on other nations for your energy.

The economy has to come first. A bankrupt America is far more dangerous to international security.[/i]

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:54 pm Post subject:

OneWayTraffic wrote:

...the obvious point that American military expenditures far outweigh those required for sustaining American freedom. American freedom would be better served by balancing the budget, and obtaining energy independence for example.

What does this lecture have to do with this aircraft going down? You do not approve of America's defense spending and you do not approve of stealth bombers' existence. Very fine. Again, ref this story, so what?

With or without stealth bombers, American aircraft will suffer similar incidents. Statistically inevitable.

Let me guess: America ought to disarm so the world can return to its pre1945 Edenic conditions...

In any case, this is a stupid discussion. We are arguing over your misinterpreting Jill Kelly's snide commentary re: American idealism.

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 7:27 pm Post subject:

Quote:

The point, I think, that you are trying to make is that the US uses its power to protect its interests, and protecting your interests is a bad thing. Is that correct?

I'm getting the impression if the US had invaded Zimbabwe we'd also be open to your criticism. Damned if we do. Damned if we don't.

OneWayTraffic

Joined: 14 Mar 2005

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 7:49 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

OneWayTraffic wrote:

Kellys comment hit a nerve. Too many Americans think that it's necessary to spend more on the military than the next 168 nations combined to remain free. Which is plainly ridiculous. I never stated that I disapprove of 1.2billion dollar stealth bombers. I did state that equivalating these with freedom is stupid.

OneWayTraffic

Joined: 14 Mar 2005

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:00 pm Post subject:

Ya-ta Boy wrote:

Quote:

The first part is correct, and the second part is totally wrong.

Quote:

Nothing wrong with being a superpower, but that's got nothing to do with freedom.

Again I'm simply replying to the freedom point. Please show me where I state that being a superpower and protecting your interests is wrong.

Secondly, do you really think the invasion of Iraq was in America's interests? A majority of Americans, including the likely next president would disagree with you.

Thirdly, do you really disagree with my point that running record deficits is hardly in Americas best interests? The military is an obvious target for cuts. You could reduce spending to 2% of GDP and still have the world's most formidable forces, by a wide margin.

Last edited by OneWayTraffic on Sun Feb 24, 2008 8:15 pm; edited 1 time in total

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 1 of 3

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe