The 90,000 people building the F-22 can certainly make something else

[SoCalDem]

Boondoggles like this could surely be ended, and the money used more productively.

What good is an F-22 against a guy with an explosives-belt? or an IED? or guys firing RPGs from caves?

It's time to kiss the "old-war" mentality goodbye.

The military industrial complex needs to CHANGE.. Detroit turned on a dime from cars to tanks & jeeps , when we needed them to, and now it;s time for another change...away from war-machines, and to things that create something else..

[el_bryanto]

1. Yes and no

I mean there are military priorities. Planes that have worn out need to be replaced. Planes that are obsolete need to be replaced.

That said, the people making those decisions, often times, seem more concerned with providing pork to their districts or to favored military contractors than with actually protecting us.

Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute, as the saying goes.

Bryant

[SoCalDem]

2. they could surely just make NEW ones of the ones that work and are being used now

It would actually even be cheaper, since they already know how to do ti:)

[HopeHoops]

4. Gates doesn't want the fuckers - we don't need them.

Gates wants the money to go toward the equipment we actually NEED right now - silly stuff like body armor and other trivial toys for the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. But what does he know? This is a classic case of pork - the military says "WE DON'T WANT THAT" and Congress says, "Oh, but you DO, you DO! You just don't KNOW it!"

I'm all for keeping jobs in place, but not this way. If the defense contractors are so slick, why can't they retool to build up-armored vehicles to slow the stream of body bags? I have no problem with spending the money as long as it goes toward what our troops NEED! They have no use for F-22s and neither does the military. This is PORK!

OINK OINK OINK!

End of rant.

[redqueen]

6. Yes, that's the crux of it. The military doesn't want them,

but the selfish little shits in congress do.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Define 'obsolete'.

If, in military practicalities, no one can compete with what we already have, why do we need to go on to bigger, better, shinier toys?

Is China or Russia or Argentina or Luxembourg building fighters that can outfly and outfight what we now have? Do they have any such fighters in development? If not, why the need to improve the fleet? In fact, why not REDUCE the fleet?

If anyone wants to destroy us, they don't need pretty planes to do it. China calling in our debt would suffice quite well - and our economic agreements with them already IS tribute, to keep them from doing just that.

[el_bryanto]

8. I'm not a military expert to answer such questions

Are you?

[opihimoimoi]

3. K&R You tell um SCD.....This gatta change :o)

BREAKING:

OBAMA KILLED IT....

[merh]

5. Silly me - I used to think that manufacturers who wanted to survive

would find out what is needed and manufacture that. It just seems that the consumers are harmed because manufacturers won't keep up with the times.

Had television manufacturers sat content with their product we all would still be watching black and white tvs.

If the F-22 is not needed isn't it the responsibility of the manufacturer to find a way to manufacture what is needed.