Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:

Quote:

---

It may not be against it but its certainly ignorant of it. "Lighter", "Flexible" and "More Responsive" are common buzz words they say when their are going to screw you on something.

---

I find it hilarious that the Leftists, the anti-war crowd, and/or the anti-President Bush bunch simultaneously describe President Bush as a simpleton while ascribing him with all sorts of detailed means on "screwing people". Come on, he is a busy guy and that is why he has a staff. If you have a problem with Defense policy, it is with SecDef Rumsfeld or someone on his staff like ASD Gordon England.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GunRunner:

Just because the Navy managed it doesn’t mean the USAF didn't lay down the law on the engine issue. The Navy was the only branch that had a need for a twin-engine system and it came down to no aircraft or one engine. Anyways a single reliable engine doesn’t matter much when you have to fly it home with a dozen 20mm holes through it.

Which is the "last twin engine Navy aircraft program" your talking about? The F/A-18? I didn't realize that turned out bad?

---

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/a-12.htm

To my knowledge, A-12 is the all time king of acquisition disasters. There may exist bigger fiascos but I doubt they are common knowledge.

The Navy has accepted single engine aircraft before such as A-7 so its not unprecendented. True, two engine can be better than one but no aircraft because it cost too much isn't that great a deal. Having two engines is no guarrantee of safety either.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The AIM-120 is meant to replace the AIM-7, if its meant to replace the Phoenix its totally the wrong system for it, it lacks he range and can't be carried on the same launchers. It maybe old but its still one of the best systems to intercept strike aircraft with.

---

AIM-120 is/was meant to replace a whole host of AA missiles (AIM-7) and even some air defense missiles. I thought AIM-54 was included and am fairly certain the Navy drove a bunch of requirements into it for that reason. AIM-26? I don't know all the specifics.

---

Quote:

---

AIM-26? I don't know all the specifics.

---

Quote:

---

It may not be against it but its certainly ignorant of it. "Lighter", "Flexible" and "More Responsive" are common buzz words they say when their are going to screw you on something.

---

Quote:

---

The Transformation policy traces back to the 1991/1992 Defense Planning Guide which I am sure SergeantX will fill you in on if you ask (or not).

---

Quote:

---

Yes, the Cold War is over. We won, thank goodness and President Ronald Reagan.

---

Quote:

---

Now the messy part begins. The US is still doing the heavy lifting in making the world a safer place. As you noted, the weapon systems did not go away -- they simply changed ownership. Like those nasty supersonic cruise missiles that Ukraine recently sold Iran and North Korea.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,15741164,00.html] The KH-55 is subsonic, and luckily only Russian owned submarines have the torpedo tubes capable of loading the sub launched version (SS-N-21 'SAMPSON') and that’s the only real way of successfully using a nuke with one of these in an offensive way since there are so many ways to find and kill and aircraft. They are nasty on paper but leave a lot to be desired…

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:
Where did President Bush get this certain indisputable fact that Iraq possessed no WMD capabilities? The UN? The French? The Russians? Did Saddam Hussein call him up on the phone and promise he had no WMD?

---

Quote:

---

If so, that is one hell of an assertion. Can you back that up? I doubt it. Where is the evidence?

---

Quote:

---

rue, while I agree totally with the bulk of what you said, don't you think the term 'sociopaths' is a little strong?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GunRunner:
Of course you unfortunately need to give credit to Nixon for wining the Cold War since he helped authorize operations like “Ivy Bells” which helped put Reagan in to the position he was in.

---

No unfortunately about it, President Nixon was a genius with his foreign policy strategies. I give him due credit. Playing China against the USSR was a master stroke.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The KH-55 is subsonic, and luckily only Russian owned submarines have the torpedo tubes capable of loading the sub launched version (SS-N-21 'SAMPSON') and that’s the only real way of successfully using a nuke with one of these in an offensive way since there are so many ways to find and kill and aircraft. They are nasty on paper but leave a lot to be desired…

---

Of course, you are right on the Kh-55 being subsonic. I confused it with the SS-N-22 Sunburns we were buying from the Russians a few years ago for target practice (no kidding).

---

Quote:

---

Damn Russians made some many fricking missiles you need a playbook to keep them all straight.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:

Quote:

---

It may not be against it but its certainly ignorant of it. "Lighter", "Flexible" and "More Responsive" are common buzz words they say when their are going to screw you on something.

---

I find it hilarious that the Leftists, the anti-war crowd, and/or the anti-President Bush bunch simultaneously describe President Bush as a simpleton while ascribing him with all sorts of detailed means on "screwing people". Come on, he is a busy guy and that is why he has a staff. If you have a problem with Defense policy, it is with SecDef Rumsfeld or someone on his staff like ASD Gordon England.

---

Kind of a non sequitur about Bush's intellect here, maybe Lynch meant it as a joke?

Nonetheless, I'm reminded of what a friend told me about Bush after travelling with him for a few weeks during the 2000 campain. He told me that contrary to popular (you might say leftist) belief, Bush is not a simpleton at all, he's actually pretty clever, pretty sharp and a funny guy to talk to while you ride a bus cross country. What my friend observed was that Bush's cleverness and sharpness evaporated when he was called upon to b.s. When b.s.-ing he got all mush-mouthed and started repeating phrases, and losing his train of thought completely. Basically, what he was saying was that Bush was a bad liar. I think he's gotten better at it though. As Rue said, success has emboldened all of them.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

---

You don't see the contradiction? How can President Bush be the simpleton the Leftists, et al, describe him to be one day and the "evil genius" causing all sorts of sophisticated problems for the same people the next day? Is he smart or dumb? Pick one!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:
Lets not rehash the same old WMD in Iraq story again though. This thread is about supposedly about Iran.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

Quote:

---

rue, while I agree totally with the bulk of what you said, don't you think the term 'sociopaths' is a little strong?

---

If you can laugh over executing a woman there is something seriously missing in your psyche.
But there is more. Watch him giving a speech someday. Can you find a single genuine response, or does it all have a vaguely synthetic, manipulative oily sheen? IMHO

---