F-15 Breakup Animation & video

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...gop_field.html

Rudy's Historic Rewrite

Giuliani falsely blamed President Clinton for cuts in the military that
happened mostly under a Republican administration:
Giuliani: Bill Clinton cut the military drastically. It's called the peace
dividend, one of those nice-sounding phrases, very devastating. It was a 25,
30 percent cut in the military. President Bush has never made up for that.
We – our Army had been at 725,000; it's down to 500,000.
Actually, most of the cutting to which Giuliani refers occurred during the
administration of George H.W. Bush. At the end of fiscal year 1993
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/Hst0993.pdf (which
was Bush’s last one in office), the Army had 572,423 active-duty soldiers –
a far cry from 725,000. In fact, to get to that number, one has to go back
to 1990
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/Hst0990.pdf, during
the first gulf war. Moreover, Clinton’s cuts in the military, while large,
were nowhere close to 25 percent to 30 percent. Between 1993 and 2001
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/M05/hst0901.pdf, the Army went from
572,423 to 480,801, which is a decline of 16 percent. The entire military
went from 1,705,103 to 1,385,116, a decrease of 18.8 percent.

Compare that with the far larger cuts made during the first Bush
administration: In 1989
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/Hst0989.pdf, the
military stood at 2,130,229 and the Army had 769,741 soldiers. By 1993,
those numbers had declined by 19.9 percent and 25.6 percent, respectively.

And as we’ve pointed out before
http://www.factcheck.org/more_mitt_missteps.html, it was the first Bush
administration – specifically then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney – that
began bragging openly of the peace dividend.

"LWG" wrote in message
. ..

Only if you are a liar or a thief.


Then Congress is comprised of liars and thieves.

wrote in message
. net...

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...gop_field.html

Rudy's Historic Rewrite

Giuliani falsely blamed President Clinton for cuts in the military that
happened mostly under a Republican administration:
Giuliani: Bill Clinton cut the military drastically. It's called the peace
dividend, one of those nice-sounding phrases, very devastating. It was a
25,
30 percent cut in the military. President Bush has never made up for that.
We - our Army had been at 725,000; it's down to 500,000.
Actually, most of the cutting to which Giuliani refers occurred during the
administration of George H.W. Bush. At the end of fiscal year 1993
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/Hst0993.pdf
(which
was Bush's last one in office), the Army had 572,423 active-duty
soldiers -
a far cry from 725,000. In fact, to get to that number, one has to go back
to 1990
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/Hst0990.pdf,
during
the first gulf war. Moreover, Clinton's cuts in the military, while large,
were nowhere close to 25 percent to 30 percent. Between 1993 and 2001
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/M05/hst0901.pdf, the Army went
from
572,423 to 480,801, which is a decline of 16 percent. The entire military
went from 1,705,103 to 1,385,116, a decrease of 18.8 percent.

Compare that with the far larger cuts made during the first Bush
administration: In 1989
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/Hst0989.pdf, the
military stood at 2,130,229 and the Army had 769,741 soldiers. By 1993,
those numbers had declined by 19.9 percent and 25.6 percent, respectively.

And as we've pointed out before
http://www.factcheck.org/more_mitt_missteps.html, it was the first Bush
administration - specifically then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney - that
began bragging openly of the peace dividend.


Right. The first Bush administration reduced defense to a level appropriate
to a post-Cold War world. The Clinton administration reduced defense below
that level.

On Jan 14, 12:01*pm, "Dennis Johnson" wrote:

I'm not sure it makes sense to continue putting money into warplanes that
have pilots on board....

I would like to see the billions of dollars spent on an F-22
roll-out and for an F-35 design to be spent on developing uncrewed warplanes
instead. *I think this trend is inevitable, it's only a question of when..

The Air Force has already started down that road, albeit slowly and
tentatively: they've recently admitted that UAV's have been more
extensively used for combat sorties than USAF leaders had let on and
some recent graduates of pilot training have been assiged to UAV's.
That second move is controversial inside and outside the USAF: some
argue that pilots are not the best choices for a kind of operation
fundamentally different from in-the-cockpit flying. If the most
suitable type of individual is at all like a certain chair-flier on
these forums, then I'm glad I'm retired. Fighter jocks were hard
enough to take...

"Dennis Johnson" wrote in message . ..

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:FoKij.35256$Ux2.29488@attbi_s22...
I hope this means accelerated funding and deployment of the F-22 and F-35, but I fear otherwise.

I'm not sure it makes sense to continue putting money into warplanes that have pilots on board. There are huge
disadvantages to carrying a person. The airplane must have redundant systems for safety and reliability, and often
those redundant systems also have backup systems. The weight penalty for the life support systems, including the
cockpit, ejection seat, and pressurization system are considerable. The potential acceleration of the airplane must
be greatly reduced due to the frailty of the human on board.


Air power is one thing, sea power is another. Apparently Japan has a larger navy than the brits!
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/na...1217_1_n.shtml

On 14-Jan-2008, "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Right. The first Bush administration reduced defense to a level
appropriate
to a post-Cold War world. The Clinton administration reduced defense
below
that level.

Careful, your bias is showing.
Scott Wilson

wrote in message
. net...

Careful, your bias is showing.


Can't, I have none.

On 14-Jan-2008, "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Can't, I have none.



Oh please. I once talked to a Green Bay controller who knows you, and he
said you are about as far right-wing as they come, implied you're almost
looney about it. Stuff I've seen you post in the past confirmed it.
Scott Wilson

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Careful, your bias is showing.


Can't, I have none.


Nor have I.

I am a Fair and Balanced guy. I know it's true because I believe it, and
since I am without bias, I must be right.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

wrote:
On 14-Jan-2008, "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Can't, I have none.



Oh please. I once talked to a Green Bay controller who knows you, and he
said you are about as far right-wing as they come, implied you're almost
looney about it. Stuff I've seen you post in the past confirmed it.
Scott Wilson


The guy you talked to obviously didn't know what he was talking about.
Almost?? :-)