The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > Military Spending
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 07-15-2009, 10:29 AM
MrQ1701's Avatar
MrQ1701 MrQ1701 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Espanola, New Mexico
Posts: 3,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zardoz View Post
In my opinon, no offense to my freinds from other countries, but America should go isolationist for awhile and rebuild our nation, and economy. We really need to do this to be a better partner in world politics.
I agree to a point. I think focusing our attention on our own country's health would be a good thing, but we live in a global society now. I'm not sure how far isolationism could go. I'd hate to see funding for humanitarian relief in other countries get the axe and then lots of people starve or die from disease.
__________________
To secure the peace is to prepare for war. -Metallica
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-15-2009, 10:30 AM
jerhanner's Avatar
jerhanner jerhanner is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deep in the 100 Acre Wood
Posts: 3,905
Default

There's no way to be 100% safe, although the Atlantic & Pacific did a good job for a while. If we lead lives of paranoia, well, where's the fun in that? I say, have enough weapons that no one else is gonna pick on us and then spend the rest on helping our rural poor get medical & dental care, or our indigent elderly have a nice retirement home.
And alas, MrQ, my myspace page got hacked so I deleted it. I'm all about the facebook now.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-15-2009, 10:36 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zardoz View Post
In my opinon, no offense to my freinds from other countries, but America should go isolationist for awhile and rebuild our nation, and economy. We really need to do this to be a better partner in world politics.
None taken, and there are probably many people in the world who would agree exceptionally strongly.

But I think the problem (well, not problem) but fact, is that America is now so intertwined with the rest of the world now. There's not really much in the world America is not involved in now, and added to the increasingly connected world we're moving toward anyway, such a severe withdrawal is probably past the point of no return.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-15-2009, 10:38 AM
Zardoz's Avatar
Zardoz Zardoz is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere In The Future
Posts: 31,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrQ1701 View Post
I agree to a point. I think focusing our attention on our own country's health would be a good thing, but we live in a global society now. I'm not sure how far isolationism could go. I'd hate to see funding for humanitarian relief in other countries get the axe and then lots of people starve or die from disease.
Well people live like 3rd world countires right here in America, dying from starvation and curable disease everyday. We can all agree that America is broken, and needs to be fixed. I'm talking a time to heal so we can go back to the world stage, a healthy and strong country again.
__________________
"High Priestesses Of Zardoz" By Eliza's Starbase Of Avatars Copyright 2009."
"Zardoz Speaks To You, His Choosen Trek Fans."
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-15-2009, 10:43 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

But didn't people die of those problems in America even when it was more isolated in the past? I think you're looking at distribution of wealth for the problem these days. America is an insanely wealthy country and there is no reason the population could not be helped by better social programs and wiser spending.

But then certain US groups cry it's the evil of 'socialism' and cry that your country will be destroyed if you create a better healthcare system.

I cannot get my head around that myself, but it seems the case.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-15-2009, 10:54 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

I agree Kevin, any US withdrawal out of an area where they are involved has to be carefully analyzed. You can't simply pull out of Iraq without anticipating any potential effect of this action.
I might give the neocons too much credit, but the only rationale for the Iraq war I found convincing was to a) endSaddam's support for suicide bombers in Palestine and increase the middle-run chance for a two-states solution and b) increase pressure upon Saudi-Arabia, a reliable US ally but also the country where many of the 9/11 terrorists came from.

Once you are in the game, you cannot simply exit.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-15-2009, 10:59 AM
Zardoz's Avatar
Zardoz Zardoz is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere In The Future
Posts: 31,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
But didn't people die of those problems in America even when it was more isolated in the past? I think you're looking at distribution of wealth for the problem these days. America is an insanely wealthy country and there is no reason the population could not be helped by better social programs and wiser spending.

But then certain US groups cry it's the evil of 'socialism' and cry that your country will be destroyed if you create a better healthcare system.

I cannot get my head around that myself, but it seems the case.
I don't disagree with you. By internalizing policies, we can fix alot of these issues before coming back into the world fold. It would give America a break to impliment better programs and redirect goverment monies for better serving the homeless and underprivildged with education, food, and jobs
__________________
"High Priestesses Of Zardoz" By Eliza's Starbase Of Avatars Copyright 2009."
"Zardoz Speaks To You, His Choosen Trek Fans."
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-15-2009, 12:09 PM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,989
Default

General John J.W. Corley, US Commander of the Air Combat Command thinks that this will put the execution of current military strategy at high risk in the short to medium term. He believes that the optimum number of F-22's should be 381, as oppposed to the 187 the fleet is scheduled to have after a proposed shutdown of the project.

The role of the air superiorty fighter is a long term role, I don't think you can look at conflicts like Iraq and Afganastan and then say that is proof positive of the longer term needs of our air fleet. The F-22 will be in service for decades.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-15-2009, 12:40 PM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

From my perspective, I would tend to potentially assume he's overstating how many he would actually need because he's the one that wants them.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-15-2009, 12:47 PM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,989
Default

The original plan was to phase out the F-15 in favor of the F-22 as the main air superiority fighter of the US, relegating a smaller number of F-15's as support and multi role fighters. That would require larger numbers than 187. I don't think this is a case of overstating, because I don't believe that the General is negotiating. I think that is the number he sees as a legitimate long term defense need. I think cutting the program is short sighted.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:24 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.