Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Real News report on "The cost of empire"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 11:32 AM
Original message
Real News report on "The cost of empire"
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 11:33 AM by 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...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mr. Hyde Donating Member (314 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Did you know that the F-22 has 1/2 the life expectancy as originally planed
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 02:15 PM by bahrbearian
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr. Hyde Donating Member (314 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. OMG! There's a few bad parts, we better scrap the whole program right now then.
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
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...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr. Hyde Donating Member (314 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #6
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pauldg0 Donating Member (608 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I don't doubt it. It is a great weapon...............
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 11:19 PM by pauldg0
.....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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr. Hyde Donating Member (314 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. It's already pushing the technology envelope
Edited on Sun Mar-08-09 12:07 AM by Mr. Hyde
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Half the expected life expectancy?
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 05:06 PM by rollingrock
who builds this overpriced piece of junk? General Motors?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
empire we are Donating Member (91 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. k and r
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
empire we are Donating Member (91 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr. Hyde Donating Member (314 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. That's quite a lot of bullshit there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
empire we are Donating Member (91 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. In what way?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #13
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lostnotforgotten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Hello Mr. Rumsfeld - Having A Hard Time Finding A New Job?
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 24th 2014, 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Political Videos Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC