Here comes the "Obama is selling out our military" mantra

[lawgator1]

why do we need a military, obama will be able to simply will them to be peaceful, and if not, LG can go call them racist and close minded

It is written Barack 3:16

No, you got it all wrong. The more nuclear submarines and stealth fighters we have, the less the terrorists will attack us.

 

[droski]

No, you got it all wrong. The more nuclear submarines and stealth fighters we have, the less the terrorists will attack us.

stealth fighters have been used aggresively in our fight in afganistan.

 

[DC Vol]

stealth fighters have been used aggresively in our fight in afganistan.

I didn't work on or near an AF Desk, but at least with the Navy/USMC side... most of the stuff they called on first were drones and helos. It's like overengineering a lawn-mower. Do you really need a 4 speed transmission... to mow a flat 1/3 acre lot?

Stealth fighters are definitely a requirement and they fill a very special need... but should not be seen as an all-encompassing utility to subsist such a large portion of the DoD budget.

 

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

No, you got it all wrong. The more nuclear submarines and stealth fighters we have, the less the terrorists will attack us.

yah, but you forget about the chinese, the north koreans, the iranians etc etc.

besides if those folks in congress would let the military do its job, then yes what comes from those planes would scare the hell out of the terrorists and there would be less threat of attack, why? because we sent all those coward SOBs to hell

 

[OrangeEmpire]

No, you got it all wrong. The more nuclear submarines and stealth fighters we have, the less the terrorists will attack us.

I prefer the russian method of killing them and bury them in the ground in burlap sacks.

Of course, you will be right there to defend the terrorist in civilian court because of how awful the people of this country are.

We deserve to be attacked.....

 

[BigPapaVol]

No, you got it all wrong. The more nuclear submarines and stealth fighters we have, the less the terrorists will attack us.

when did any of those become a threat to our sovereignty? When did any of them need a diplomatic push?

 

[gsvol]

Could you point me to the line in my post where I offered this failed reasoning?

As you scour it, undoubtedly certain that I said it, pay particular attention to that area where I mentioned that his personal service could have been used to formulate his opinon, but by no means was it the only acceptable criteron, just that which I believed was most likely.

Then, when you realize that I neither said nor implied that personal service was the only means by which to establish a reasoned opinion on the matter, you are welcome to recant your misstatement, of course, once your feeling of smug superiority has evaporated and the flushed feeling of angst which being wrong typically causes to incur, subsides.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Well put.

No, you got it all wrong. The more nuclear submarines and stealth fighters we have, the less the terrorists will attack us.

Right, and the less likely communist China will attack Taiwan.

I prefer the russian method of killing them and bury them in the ground in burlap sacks.

Of course, you will be right there to defend the terrorist in civilian court because of how awful the people of this country are.

We deserve to be attacked.....

We sure are trying, under this administration, to open the doors to attack, not that we aren't being attacked already, I think they meant it when the islamist fundamentalists declared war on America but the progressive liberals poo poo that as just a few radicals in some mountain caves somewhere.