Real News report on "The cost of empire"

[JohnyCanuck]

Run time: 10:48 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr11LC9I8h0   Posted on YouTube: March 07, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: March 07, 2009 By DU Member: JohnyCanuck Views on DU: 1248

 

Last week President Obama unveiled his record-spending 2010 budget proposal, which included a slight increase in funding for the Pentagon when compared with George Bush's budget of 2009. Though the specific details of the budget won't be released until April, the President has promised to increase troop recruitment while cutting "cold-war" weapons programs that have yet to be identified. But as the White House undergoes a reassessment of military priorities, there is little discussion about the future of the country's vast network of foreign military bases, a network that military expert Miriam Pemberton says includes roughly 1000 bases at a cost of $100 billion per year.

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&t...

[Mr. Hyde]

1. Anyone who advocates for the elimination of the F-22 program because we aren't using it in Iraq

right now fails to see the big foreign policy picture (Gates included). There are other programs that should be cut in light of this.

[bahrbearian]

2. Did you know that the F-22 has 1/2 the life expectancy as originally planed

the Titanium used was not properly heat treated. Now the F-16 and F-18 will have to be maintained to cover the early loss of the F-22. $350 million a plane for the F-22, maybe you fail to see the Big Picture.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/11/airforce_rapt... /
http://www.metalworker.com.au/Article/Alcoa-sued-for-mi...
http://www.f-22raptor.com/news_view.php?nid=202&yr=2006

Links upon edit.

[Mr. Hyde]

4. OMG! There's a few bad parts, we better scrap the whole program right now then.

[liberation]

6. I would not call the main structural elements of the plane as "a few parts"

The F22 was a complete and utter waste of money anyways...

[Mr. Hyde]

9. It will be by the time people like you get done ruining the program

The F22 is the most lethal attack jet on the planet. Do you honestly believe that this isn't a good time to have the most lethal attack jet on the planet? It's a new aircraft with a newly discovered bug. Considering the resources already poured into it, I think it would be a giant waste of money to scrap the program now because of something that can be worked out. Furthermore, consider the potential costs of not having the most lethal attack jet on the planet in our arsenal. And what would you rather spend that money on anyways?

[pauldg0]

11. I don't doubt it. It is a great weapon...............

.....and we should keep building it to keep people working, but should we just keep mass producing an extraordinary number of them? Shouldn't we always consider other new technologies to fight terrorism and reduce the need for soldiers on site. That would mean more engineers, assemblers and civilian/military techinicians...i.e. more jobs.

My first thought was nano-weapons, but I'm sure there are other ideas on the drawing board to fight terrorism too. There are dinosaurs out there that we just do not need any more of.... we stupidly spend billions for training personnel to keep obsolete weaponry, etc.

[Mr. Hyde]

12. It's already pushing the technology envelope

and I don't think we necessarily need to mass produce this plane like it was an F16 but I think it's worth keeping around in sufficient numbers for it's threat deterrent capabilities as much as anything. My understanding is that it will be the last of the manned fighters. I was under the impression that most of us thought the terrorist threat was overblown anyways. I think it definitely exists and it will continue to exist into the foreseeable future but I don't think we should build our entire defense network around this single threat, not in these uncertain times especially. I know the army has been experimenting with nanotechnology for at least a decade now. It's not hard to think of uses for microscopic radio transmitter devices in the era of terrorism. I think that's definitely a good direction to go in and it should drive plenty of innovations in the civilian sector as well. It is, of course, a shame that we have wars in the first place but the world is what it is, dangerous, violent, and evil and no amount of Grateful Dead music will change it.

[rollingrock]

5. Half the expected life expectancy?

who builds this overpriced piece of junk? General Motors?

[empire we are]

8. Weather we like it or not

the 22 is here to stay. Boeing has kept a skeletal F-15 line going with small sales to South Korea.
But unless Boeing gets some more international orders the F-15 line will shut down in a couple of years.
The USAF wants the 22, it will not buy any more F-15s.
It would be a huge and costly political battle to scrap the F-22 and ramp up F-15 production.

[Mari333]

3. k and r

nt

[empire we are]

7. Words Matter. DOD is is nothing of the sort.

As a former cog in the Military-Industrial Complex
I'd like to see the name changed back to its original.
The Department of War.
In one of our Governments most cynical moves ever the Department of War was renamed the Department of Defense

DOW from 1789 until September 18, 1947, when it became part of the National Military Establishment, renamed the Department of Defense.
on August 10, 1949

Hey why would anyone want to cut spending on Defense? But who wants to spend big bucks on War?

Words Matter.

[Mr. Hyde]

10. That's quite a lot of bullshit there.

[empire we are]

13. In what way?

[bahrbearian]

14. You don't understand

War and the Industrial War Machine creates Jobs. When we blow things up and build bombs we create jobs. Though most of the jobs aren't here, they are still needed and we do live in a global economy. And as being the Global Policeman we have the obligation to fund all the wars and rebuilding. Now do you understand?

[lostnotforgotten]

15. Hello Mr. Rumsfeld - Having A Hard Time Finding A New Job?

eom