[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

...so consistently? LOL!

"Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates issued a clear warning to the
military and its industrial partners on Tuesday that expensive, new
conventional weapons must prove their value to current conflicts,
marked by insurgency and terrorism, if they hope for a place in future
budgets."

“Overall, the kinds of capabilities we will most likely need in the
years ahead will often resemble the kinds of capabilities we need
today,” he added."

[i.e. The cold war is over, 2pid. Just like I said. LOL!]

"Those comments are certain to alarm advocates of the newest
generations of high-tech and high-cost weapons programs, in particular
the Army’s Future Combat Systems and the Air Force’s F-22 advanced
warplane. Both have come under the scrutiny of Pentagon budget
officers questioning whether either would be required for missions
similar to the current operations in Iraq or Afghanistan."

"The defense secretary also criticized a budget process that he said
results in the production of fewer, but more expensive, warships,
warplanes and armored vehicles."

[i.e. So we'll need more A-10s and AH-64 Apache Longbows, and larger
quantities of less-expensive weaponry, kind of almost exactly like
I've been saying all along, 2pid. The F-22 is an anachronism from the
cold war.]

"To be sure, the defense secretary is set to step down at the end of
the Bush administration, and thus is not expected to be in a position
to write his strategic view into any but the next budget. Thus, the
services and industry may seek to push through the programs Mr. Gates
said should be scrutinized."

[i.e. There is no shortage of boneheads such as yourself. LOL!]

"The military, he declared, “has ample and untapped combat power in
our naval and air forces, with the capacity to defeat any — repeat,
any — adversary who committed an act of aggression, whether in the
Persian Gulf, on the Korean Peninsula or in the Straits of Taiwan.
There is a risk — but a prudent and manageable one.”

[i.e. That sounds exactly like the naval Force Projection scenario I
was talking about, 2pid. Keep in 'mind' there is no carrier-based
F-22.]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/wa...rssnyt&emc=rss

Shall I hold my breath and wait to see how you'll twist all of this in
an attempt to make yourself look "right"? LMAO!

Senior military people always seem to shoot your 'military expertise'
down and support what I've said. Not bad for somebody who never
served, eh, 2pid?

As usual, people would be wise to take the opposite position from
anything you advocate. If they want to look smart, that is. LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 15, 11:34*am, ScottW wrote:
On May 15, 7:47*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
...so consistently? LOL!

"Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates issued a clear warning to the
military and its industrial partners on Tuesday that expensive, new
conventional weapons must prove their value to current conflicts,
marked by insurgency and terrorism, if they hope for a place in future
budgets."

“Overall, the kinds of capabilities we will most likely need in the
years ahead will often resemble the kinds of capabilities we need
today,” he added."

[i.e. The cold war is over, 2pid. Just like I said. LOL!]

"Those comments are certain to alarm advocates of the newest
generations of high-tech and high-cost weapons programs, in particular
the Army’s Future Combat Systems and the Air Force’s F-22 advanced
warplane. Both have come under the scrutiny of Pentagon budget
officers questioning whether either would be required for missions
similar to the current operations in Iraq or Afghanistan."

"The defense secretary also criticized a budget process that he said
results in the production of fewer, but more expensive, warships,
warplanes and armored vehicles."

[i.e. So we'll need more A-10s and AH-64 Apache Longbows, and larger
quantities of less-expensive weaponry, kind of almost exactly like
I've been saying all along, 2pid. The F-22 is an anachronism from the
cold war.]

"To be sure, the defense secretary is set to step down at the end of
the Bush administration, and thus is not expected to be in a position
to write his strategic view into any but the next budget. Thus, the
services and industry may seek to push through the programs Mr. Gates
said should be scrutinized."

[i.e. There is no shortage of boneheads such as yourself. LOL!]

"The military, he declared, “has ample and untapped combat power in
our naval and air forces, with the capacity to defeat any — repeat,
any — adversary who committed an act of aggression, whether in the
Persian Gulf, on the Korean Peninsula or in the Straits of Taiwan.
There is a risk — but a prudent and manageable one.”

* Nothing is static. *How long will the risk in the Gulf, the Taiwan
Strait and the Korean Peninsula be "prudent and manageable"?

Until our overstretched forces are out of Afghanistan and Iraq, 2pid.
That's the reason there's any risk at all. Can't you read? LOL!

Duh.

How long will it take to make it prudent and manageable again should
we let that apparently acceptable status slip away?

It's "prudent and manageable" *now*, 2pid. There is no "again".
Nothing has "slipped away".

Duh.

This is the debate on advanced weapons systems.

No, it isn't. The debate is what type of weapons systems we need to
invest in go up against current or projected adversaries, 2pid. What
Gates is saying is that we aren't very likely to face the teeming red
hordes that our military, to a large extent, is still built and
trained to oppose.

The military-industrial complex will *always* want to sell the latest,
greatest (and most expensive) technology whether it is actually needed
or not. Generals and admirals *always* want the latest and greatest
(and most expensive) technology out there.

I just *knew* you wouldn't "get it". LOL!

Duh.

Not do we need them to take out the Taliban.

Which is the type of adversary we will likely face, 2pid. Smaller
conflicts with insurgent-like behavior since they cannot compete with
the military.

Duh.

As far as the procurement process being f'd up, *that happenned while
you were in the military.

I wasn't in the military when Truman or Eisenhower was President,
2pid.

As far as really expensive (and largely irrelevent) military toys go,
look to Reagan and bushie for your answer.

Dum, de-dum dum DUM!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 15, 12:15*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 15, 9:48*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On May 15, 11:34*am, ScottW wrote:

On May 15, 7:47*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
...so consistently? LOL!

"Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates issued a clear warning to the
military and its industrial partners on Tuesday that expensive, new
conventional weapons must prove their value to current conflicts,
marked by insurgency and terrorism, if they hope for a place in future
budgets."

“Overall, the kinds of capabilities we will most likely need in the
years ahead will often resemble the kinds of capabilities we need
today,” he added."

[i.e. The cold war is over, 2pid. Just like I said. LOL!]

"Those comments are certain to alarm advocates of the newest
generations of high-tech and high-cost weapons programs, in particular
the Army’s Future Combat Systems and the Air Force’s F-22 advanced
warplane. Both have come under the scrutiny of Pentagon budget
officers questioning whether either would be required for missions
similar to the current operations in Iraq or Afghanistan."

"The defense secretary also criticized a budget process that he said
results in the production of fewer, but more expensive, warships,
warplanes and armored vehicles."

[i.e. So we'll need more A-10s and AH-64 Apache Longbows, and larger
quantities of less-expensive weaponry, kind of almost exactly like
I've been saying all along, 2pid. The F-22 is an anachronism from the
cold war.]

"To be sure, the defense secretary is set to step down at the end of
the Bush administration, and thus is not expected to be in a position
to write his strategic view into any but the next budget. Thus, the
services and industry may seek to push through the programs Mr. Gates
said should be scrutinized."

[i.e. There is no shortage of boneheads such as yourself. LOL!]

"The military, he declared, “has ample and untapped combat power in
our naval and air forces, with the capacity to defeat any — repeat,
any — adversary who committed an act of aggression, whether in the
Persian Gulf, on the Korean Peninsula or in the Straits of Taiwan.
There is a risk — but a prudent and manageable one.”

* Nothing is static. *How long will the risk in the Gulf, the Taiwan
Strait and the Korean Peninsula be "prudent and manageable"?

Until our overstretched forces are out of Afghanistan and Iraq, 2pid.
That's the reason there's any risk at all. Can't you read? LOL!

BS, the forces that are in play in Afghanistan are hardly the forces
that will be needed to operate in the Taiwan strait. *

Um, 2pid, the fighting forces are *always* the smallest part of the
deal. Think "logistics". If we're logistically tied up with a large
effort elsewhere, it very much limits our abilities elsewhere. Duh.

Further, if one of the three scenarios Gates mentioned played out, are
you saying there would be no ground component? Duh.

You're on crack.

I'm not on crack, but apparently you think the chairman of the JCOS
and the SEDEF are.

Duh.

How long will it take to make it prudent and manageable again should
we let that apparently acceptable status slip away?

It's "prudent and manageable" *now*, 2pid. There is no "again".
Nothing has "slipped away".

*It inevitably will if we stand pat. *Nothing is static.

So how is fielding a larger amount of less-expensive weapons "standing
pat"? Learn how to read:

"The defense secretary also criticized a budget process that he said
results in the production of fewer, but more expensive, warships,
warplanes and armored vehicles."

Duh.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 15, 2:15*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 15, 10:59*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On May 15, 12:15*pm, ScottW wrote:

On May 15, 9:48*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 15, 11:34*am, ScottW wrote:

On May 15, 7:47*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
...so consistently? LOL!

"Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates issued a clear warning to the
military and its industrial partners on Tuesday that expensive, new
conventional weapons must prove their value to current conflicts,
marked by insurgency and terrorism, if they hope for a place in future
budgets."

“Overall, the kinds of capabilities we will most likely need in the
years ahead will often resemble the kinds of capabilities we need
today,” he added."

[i.e. The cold war is over, 2pid. Just like I said. LOL!]

"Those comments are certain to alarm advocates of the newest
generations of high-tech and high-cost weapons programs, in particular
the Army’s Future Combat Systems and the Air Force’s F-22 advanced
warplane. Both have come under the scrutiny of Pentagon budget
officers questioning whether either would be required for missions
similar to the current operations in Iraq or Afghanistan."

"The defense secretary also criticized a budget process that he said
results in the production of fewer, but more expensive, warships,
warplanes and armored vehicles."

[i.e. So we'll need more A-10s and AH-64 Apache Longbows, and larger
quantities of less-expensive weaponry, kind of almost exactly like
I've been saying all along, 2pid. The F-22 is an anachronism from the
cold war.]

"To be sure, the defense secretary is set to step down at the end of
the Bush administration, and thus is not expected to be in a position
to write his strategic view into any but the next budget. Thus, the
services and industry may seek to push through the programs Mr. Gates
said should be scrutinized."

[i.e. There is no shortage of boneheads such as yourself. LOL!]

"The military, he declared, “has ample and untapped combat power in
our naval and air forces, with the capacity to defeat any — repeat,
any — adversary who committed an act of aggression, whether in the
Persian Gulf, on the Korean Peninsula or in the Straits of Taiwan.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 15, 3:13*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 15, 1:00*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On May 15, 2:15*pm, ScottW wrote:

On May 15, 10:59*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 15, 12:15*pm, ScottW wrote:

On May 15, 9:48*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 15, 11:34*am, ScottW wrote:

On May 15, 7:47*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
...so consistently? LOL!

"Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates issued a clear warning to the
military and its industrial partners on Tuesday that expensive, new
conventional weapons must prove their value to current conflicts,
marked by insurgency and terrorism, if they hope for a place in future
budgets."

“Overall, the kinds of capabilities we will most likely need in the
years ahead will often resemble the kinds of capabilities we need
today,” he added."

[i.e. The cold war is over, 2pid. Just like I said. LOL!]

"Those comments are certain to alarm advocates of the newest
generations of high-tech and high-cost weapons programs, in particular
the Army’s Future Combat Systems and the Air Force’s F-22 advanced
warplane. Both have come under the scrutiny of Pentagon budget
officers questioning whether either would be required for missions
similar to the current operations in Iraq or Afghanistan."

"The defense secretary also criticized a budget process that he said
results in the production of fewer, but more expensive, warships,
warplanes and armored vehicles."

[i.e. So we'll need more A-10s and AH-64 Apache Longbows, and larger
quantities of less-expensive weaponry, kind of almost exactly like
I've been saying all along, 2pid. The F-22 is an anachronism from the
cold war.]

"To be sure, the defense secretary is set to step down at the end of
the Bush administration, and thus is not expected to be in a position
to write his strategic view into any but the next budget. Thus, the
services and industry may seek to push through the programs Mr. Gates
said should be scrutinized."

[i.e. There is no shortage of boneheads such as yourself. LOL!]

"The military, he declared, “has ample and untapped combat power in
our naval and air forces, with the capacity to defeat any — repeat,
any — adversary who committed an act of aggression, whether in the
Persian Gulf, on the Korean Peninsula or in the Straits of Taiwan.
There is a risk — but a prudent and manageable one.”

* Nothing is static. *How long will the risk in the Gulf, the Taiwan
Strait and the Korean Peninsula be "prudent and manageable"?

Until our overstretched forces are out of Afghanistan and Iraq, 2pid.
That's the reason there's any risk at all. Can't you read? LOL!

BS, the forces that are in play in Afghanistan are hardly the forces
that will be needed to operate in the Taiwan strait. *

Um, 2pid, the fighting forces are *always* the smallest part of the
deal. Think "logistics". If we're logistically tied up with a large
effort elsewhere, it very much limits our abilities elsewhere. Duh.

The battle for Taiwan won't last longer than 5 days.
*If logistics come into play, you'll have already lost.

We've already lost then, 2pid, as aircraft or naval forces cannot even
get there without logistics. We'd have to divert from our main effort,
which is Iraq.

* BS, we have at most 1 or 2 carrier battle groups in the Persian gulf
at any one time.
Carrier Group 5 is based in Japan.

You're 'thinking' all-Navy, 2pid. You also apparently aren't factoring
in travel time for the Atlantic fleet, or from west-coast bases.

An aircraft carrier carries about 85-90 aircraft of all types. Even if
they were all F/A-18s that is at most 1080 aircraft if we had 12
carrier groups there. We won't have 12 there, and not all 85-90 are
fighters. Do the math, imbecile.

Three groups would be a maximum of 270 aircraft, minus patrol, anti-
sub, helicopters and other types. And this against the Vast Chinese
Armada you fear so much. LOL!

You remain, as always, full of ****.

Do the math, 2pid. As you say, I note the breakdown in your argument.

Please, please, PLEASE try to grow a brain. Your stem is obviously
overtaxed.

If I am full of ****, I am in the company of the CJCS and the SECDEF.
Considering we are talking about military matters, that's better
company to be "full of ****" with than a know-nothing imbecile,
wouldn't you agree? ;-)

Lol LoL lOl LOL!

[RapidRonnie]

"Those comments are certain to alarm advocates of the newest
generations of high-tech and high-cost weapons programs, in particular
the Army’s Future Combat Systems and the Air Force’s F-22 advanced
warplane. Both have come under the scrutiny of Pentagon budget
officers questioning whether either would be required for missions
similar to the current operations in Iraq or Afghanistan."

"The defense secretary also criticized a budget process that he said
results in the production of fewer, but more expensive, warships,
warplanes and armored vehicles."

[i.e. So we'll need more A-10s and AH-64 Apache Longbows, and larger
quantities of less-expensive weaponry, kind of almost exactly like
I've been saying all along, 2pid. The F-22 is an anachronism from the
cold war.]

"To be sure, the defense secretary is set to step down at the end of
the Bush administration, and thus is not expected to be in a position
to write his strategic view into any but the next budget. Thus, the
services and industry may seek to push through the programs Mr. Gates
said should be scrutinized."

[i.e. There is no shortage of boneheads such as yourself. LOL!]

"The military, he declared, “has ample and untapped combat power in
our naval and air forces, with the capacity to defeat any — repeat,
any — adversary who committed an act of aggression, whether in the
Persian Gulf, on the Korean Peninsula or in the Straits of Taiwan.
There is a risk — but a prudent and manageable one.”

Nothing is static. How long will the risk in the Gulf, the Taiwan
Strait and the Korean Peninsula be "prudent and manageable"?

Until our overstretched forces are out of Afghanistan and Iraq, 2pid.
That's the reason there's any risk at all. Can't you read? LOL!

Duh.

How long will it take to make it prudent and manageable again should
we let that apparently acceptable status slip away?

It's "prudent and manageable" *now*, 2pid. There is no "again".
Nothing has "slipped away".

Duh.

This is the debate on advanced weapons systems.

No, it isn't. The debate is what type of weapons systems we need to
invest in go up against current or projected adversaries, 2pid. What
Gates is saying is that we aren't very likely to face the teeming red
hordes that our military, to a large extent, is still built and
trained to oppose.

The military-industrial complex will *always* want to sell the latest,
greatest (and most expensive) technology whether it is actually needed
or not. Generals and admirals *always* want the latest and greatest
(and most expensive) technology out there.

As long as the military is expected to be the vanguard of technology
it will always be cheaper to buy the best first and cry once.

The Navy Aviator's Creed states:

"I am a United States Navy flyer:

My countrymen built the best airplane in the world and entrusted it to
me. They trained me to fly it. I will use it to the absolute limit of
my power.

With my fellow pilots, air crews, and deck crews, my plane and I will
do anything necessary to carry out our tremendous responsibilities. I
will always remember we are part of an unbeatable combat team - the
United States Navy.

When the going is fast and rough, I will not falter. I will be
uncompromising in every blow I strike. I will be humble in victory.

I am a United States Navy flyer. I have dedicated myself to my
country, with its many millions of all races, colors, and creeds. They
and their way of life are worthy of my greatest protective effort.

I ask the help of God in making that effort great enough. "


Now, there's nothing in there that says "the most cost effective
airplane in the world". Airplanes per se are not expensive to build:
even modern supersonic jets are a small percentage of their purchase
price if costed on a labor and materials basis. Doctors and lawyers
and CPAs and salespeople and retired firemen build airplanes in their
garages every day. Aircraft workers make, at most, thirty bucks an
hour, plus benefits and retirement costs, which is a trivial sum in
the great scheme of things. Aeronautical engineers are very lucky to
make much over sixty or seventy thousand a year.

We could probably build jet fighters for a little more than a Cessna
Citation goes for, if even that much, if we built them in quantities
like the Russians did. The Russians built 35,000 MiG-21s at a cost to
the State probably comparable to a good European sports car.

You want to ask our aviators to strap one on? I'm not going to.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 15, 8:44*pm, RapidRonnie wrote:
"Those comments are certain to alarm advocates of the newest
generations of high-tech and high-cost weapons programs, in particular
the Army’s Future Combat Systems and the Air Force’s F-22 advanced
warplane. Both have come under the scrutiny of Pentagon budget
officers questioning whether either would be required for missions
similar to the current operations in Iraq or Afghanistan."

"The defense secretary also criticized a budget process that he said
results in the production of fewer, but more expensive, warships,
warplanes and armored vehicles."

[i.e. So we'll need more A-10s and AH-64 Apache Longbows, and larger
quantities of less-expensive weaponry, kind of almost exactly like
I've been saying all along, 2pid. The F-22 is an anachronism from the
cold war.]

"To be sure, the defense secretary is set to step down at the end of
the Bush administration, and thus is not expected to be in a position
to write his strategic view into any but the next budget. Thus, the
services and industry may seek to push through the programs Mr. Gates
said should be scrutinized."

[i.e. There is no shortage of boneheads such as yourself. LOL!]

"The military, he declared, “has ample and untapped combat power in
our naval and air forces, with the capacity to defeat any — repeat,
any — adversary who committed an act of aggression, whether in the
Persian Gulf, on the Korean Peninsula or in the Straits of Taiwan.
There is a risk — but a prudent and manageable one.”

* Nothing is static. *How long will the risk in the Gulf, the Taiwan
Strait and the Korean Peninsula be "prudent and manageable"?

Until our overstretched forces are out of Afghanistan and Iraq, 2pid.
That's the reason there's any risk at all. Can't you read? LOL!

Duh.

How long will it take to make it prudent and manageable again should
we let that apparently acceptable status slip away?

It's "prudent and manageable" *now*, 2pid. There is no "again".
Nothing has "slipped away".

Duh.

This is the debate on advanced weapons systems.

No, it isn't. The debate is what type of weapons systems we need to
invest in go up against current or projected adversaries, 2pid. What
Gates is saying is that we aren't very likely to face the teeming red
hordes that our military, to a large extent, is still built and
trained to oppose.

The military-industrial complex will *always* want to sell the latest,
greatest (and most expensive) technology whether it is actually needed
or not. Generals and admirals *always* want the latest and greatest
(and most expensive) technology out there.

*As long as the military is expected to be the vanguard of technology
it will always be cheaper to buy the best first and cry once.

*The Navy Aviator's Creed states:

"I am a United States Navy flyer:

My countrymen built the best airplane in the world and entrusted it to
me. They trained me to fly it. I will use it to the absolute limit of
my power.

With my fellow pilots, air crews, and deck crews, my plane and I will
do anything necessary to carry out our tremendous responsibilities. I
will always remember we are part of an unbeatable combat team - the
United States Navy.

When the going is fast and rough, I will not falter. I will be
uncompromising in every blow I strike. I will be humble in victory.

I am a United States Navy flyer. I have dedicated myself to my
country, with its many millions of all races, colors, and creeds. They
and their way of life are worthy of my greatest protective effort.

I ask the help of God in making that effort great enough. "

*Now, there's nothing in there that says "the most cost effective
airplane in the world". Airplanes per se are not expensive to build:
even modern supersonic jets are a small percentage of their purchase
price if costed on a labor and materials basis. Doctors and lawyers
and CPAs and salespeople and retired firemen build airplanes in their
garages every day. Aircraft workers make, at most, thirty bucks an
hour, plus benefits and retirement costs, which is a trivial sum in
the great scheme of things. Aeronautical engineers are very lucky to
make much over sixty or seventy thousand a year.

*We could probably build jet fighters for a little more than a Cessna
Citation goes for, if even that much, if we built them in quantities
like the Russians did. The Russians built 35,000 MiG-21s at a cost to
the State probably comparable to a good European sports car.

*You want to ask our aviators to strap one on? I'm not going to.

2pid is more worried about MiG-17s. Jingoism aside, you build the
military to fight the battles it is anticipated that it will fight. F/
A-18s, F-15s, A-10s, F-16s, and so on, will do. We also have the F-35
coming on line at a far, far lower unit cost than the F-22 (which is
not available to Naval Aviators anyway...).

Using your model here, we should be ditching the M-16 in favor of a
high-tech rifle replacement (after all, you're not going to ask a
front-line infantry soldier to "strap one on", are you? They are 1960s
technology.), spending tons to develop the replacement for the M-1
Abrams tank (ditto an armor soldier), new Combat Engineer vehicles,
new nuclear ballistic missile subs, and on and on and on.

Or does spending ridiculously massive amounts to fight the wars of
bygone eras only apply to aircraft?

It would make far more sense, and far less expensive, to develop an
unmanned platform that was capable of firing AA missiles and could be
controlled by joystick from Omaha.

The only job of an air-superiority fighter is to allow freedom of
movement for ground and naval forces, transport capability and rotary-
wing aircraft at given times and places. That's it.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 15, 8:44*pm, RapidRonnie wrote:

*The Navy Aviator's Creed states:

BTW, here is the latest "Soldier's Creed":

I am an American Soldier.
I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the
United States, and live the Army Values.
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.
I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and
proficient in my warrior tasks and drills.
I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.
I am an expert and I am a professional.
I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy, the enemies of the
United States of America in close combat.
I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
I am an American Soldier.

This is the type of stuff printed on little cards for new recruits and
generally ignored until someone is studying for an NCO board. I'd
imagine the Naval Aviator's Creed gets much the same treatment.

[BretLudwig]

****R : "Using your model here, we should be ditching the M-16 in favor
of a
high-tech rifle replacement (after all, you're not going to ask a
front-line infantry soldier to "strap one on", are you? They are 1960s
technology.), spending tons to develop the replacement for the M-1
Abrams tank (ditto an armor soldier), new Combat Engineer vehicles,
new nuclear ballistic missile subs, and on and on and on."

I'd definitely ditch the AR-15/M16 rifle (except for the specialized uses
for which it had been developed) in favor of something more intrinsically
reliable in dirty conditions and firing a more manstopping round than the
inadequate .223, which is great for busting varmints smaller and less
tough than feral cats but is illegal-and properly so-for deer in most
states. The FN-FAL or variants thereof or any of several other designs
would be FAR better, chambered for a cartridge of at least .243
ballistics.

The 7.62x39 has a lot of things to recommend it. Reliability is one.
Accuracy is not one, and neither is long range performance.

Our troops deserve a battle rifle that is at least adequate to reliably
and humanely dispatch feral cats ( a subject with which I have extensive
first hand experience-I won't shoot them with less than a .243 or bigger)
and is legal for whitetail deer on the reasonable basis of being able to
reliably down them. The .223 (5.56) fails this criterion and in addition
the M16 is not sufficiently reliable in dirty conditions either. Then
again, it wasn't Eugene Stoner's brief to make it so: it was intended for
Air Force ramp stormtroopers to guard nuclear armed alert bombers.

--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/
More information at http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/faq.html

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 16, 9:58*am, ScottW wrote:
On May 15, 7:52*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 15, 8:44*pm, RapidRonnie wrote:

*The Navy Aviator's Creed states:

BTW, here is the latest "Soldier's Creed":

I am an American Soldier.
I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the
United States, and live the Army Values.
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.

*****r is 0 fer all the above.

I am, was, or will be an American Soldier.

2pid is zero for all of the above. LOL!

What an imbecile.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 16, 8:34*am, "BretLudwig" wrote:
****R : "Using your model here, we should be ditching the M-16 in favor
of a
high-tech rifle replacement (after all, you're not going to ask a
front-line infantry soldier to "strap one on", are you? They are 1960s
technology.), spending tons to develop the replacement for the M-1
Abrams tank (ditto an armor soldier), new Combat Engineer vehicles,
new nuclear ballistic missile subs, and on and on and on."

*I'd definitely ditch the AR-15/M16 rifle (except for the specialized uses
for which it had been developed) in favor of something more intrinsically
reliable in dirty conditions and firing a more manstopping round than the
inadequate .223

I wasn't surprised that 2pid was wrong.

I'm about as not surprised that Bratzi is too... ;-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 17, 10:19*am, ScottW wrote:
On May 17, 5:22*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On May 16, 9:58*am, ScottW wrote:

On May 15, 7:52*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 15, 8:44*pm, RapidRonnie wrote:

*The Navy Aviator's Creed states:

BTW, here is the latest "Soldier's Creed":

I am an American Soldier.
I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the
United States, and live the Army Values.
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.

*****r is 0 fer all the above.

I am, was, or will be an American Soldier.

2pid is zero for all of the above. LOL!

Which of us quit?

Neither of us, 2pid.

You never served, I retired.

What an imbecile.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 17, 3:02*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 17, 12:55*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On May 17, 10:19*am, ScottW wrote:

On May 17, 5:22*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 16, 9:58*am, ScottW wrote:

On May 15, 7:52*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 15, 8:44*pm, RapidRonnie wrote:

*The Navy Aviator's Creed states:

BTW, here is the latest "Soldier's Creed":

I am an American Soldier.
I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the
United States, and live the Army Values.
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.

*****r is 0 fer all the above.

I am, was, or will be an American Soldier.

2pid is zero for all of the above. LOL!

Which of us quit?

Neither of us, 2pid.

You never served, I retired.

*So you quit on your own protest. *I see.

Wrong again, service evader.

Retiring has nothing to do with "quitting". No matter how stupid you
are, even you must get this.

Let me guess: you go to retirement parties and your office and accuse
those who are retiring of "quitting".

And without my having to guess: they don't have retirement parties at
your office for people who never worked there. LMAO!

What an imbecile.

[BretLudwig]

" How can 2pid get things so wrong...
by "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" May 17, 2008
at 05:51 AM

On May 16, 8:34=A0am, "BretLudwig" wrote:
****R : "Using your model here, we should be ditching the M-16 in
favor
of a
high-tech rifle replacement (after all, you're not going to ask a
front-line infantry soldier to "strap one on", are you? They are 1960s
technology.), spending tons to develop the replacement for the M-1
Abrams tank (ditto an armor soldier), new Combat Engineer vehicles,
new nuclear ballistic missile subs, and on and on and on."

=A0I'd definitely ditch the AR-15/M16 rifle (except for the specialized
us=
es
for which it had been developed) in favor of something more
intrinsically
reliable in dirty conditions and firing a more manstopping round than
the
inadequate .223

I wasn't surprised that 2pid was wrong.

I'm about as not surprised that Bratzi is too... ;-)"


Col. Jeff Cooper was probably the #1 small arms expert in the United
States and neither he nor hundreds of other officers, NCOs and law
enforcement professionals felt the M16/AR-15 weapons system was an
appropriate selection for the tasks for which it was put by the United
States Army and USMC.

Eugene Stoner himself was not overly thrilled with the servicewide
deployment of this rifle and said on many occasions he would have
preferred many later designs replace it.

I have owned several AR-15 rifles, Colt and other manufactuers', and
fired many more others including M16A1, A2 and A4 variants owned by the
military and (in the A1 case) legal Title II licensed private owners. It
is a nice rifle to shoot and I would recommend it for civilian
recreational use or for certain specialized LE/security and military uses.
It is not sufficiently reliable in stock form when used and maintained by
garden variety troops in the field over a wide range of conditions and it
does not fire a battleworthy rifle cartridge. It is not capable of
reliably stopping enraged or drugged combatants with one bullet under all
conditions. It is a varmint round pure and simple.

There are few things as fun as nailing squirrels in the head at moderate
ranges with a .223 and cooking them tastily. I love squirrel stew and
squirrel chow mein. But I won't even shoot feral cats, much less deer,
with one.

The minimum acceptable cartridge is one with at least 7mm bullet diameter
and muzzle energy in the class with a .243, .308 or 7.62x39 round. This
supposes a larger head diameter cartridge than the .223 and therefore
rebarreling the M16/AR-15 is not quite an option.

FN/FAL, Galil, or HK rifle systems are all far, far better choices as
would be a lightened M14/M1A or other Garand derivatives. Moving NATO from
..308 to 7mm08 or .243 would be okay if a flatter shooting lighter recoiling
round were needed.

--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/
More information at http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/faq.html

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 17, 6:30*pm, "BretLudwig" wrote:
" How can 2pid get things so wrong...

by "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" May

I wasn't surprised that 2pid was wrong.

I'm about as not surprised that Bratzi is too... ;-)"

*Col. Jeff Cooper was probably the #1 small arms expert in the United
States and neither he nor hundreds of other officers, NCOs and law
enforcement professionals felt the M16/AR-15 weapons system was an
appropriate selection for the tasks for which it was put by the United
States Army and USMC.

*Eugene Stoner himself was not overly thrilled with the servicewide
deployment of this rifle and said on many occasions he would have
preferred many later designs replace it.

*I have owned several AR-15 rifles, Colt and other manufactuers', and
fired many more others including M16A1, A2 and A4 variants owned by the
military and (in the A1 case) legal Title II licensed private owners. It
is a nice rifle to shoot and I would recommend it for civilian
recreational use or for certain specialized LE/security and military uses.
It is not sufficiently reliable in stock form when used and maintained by
garden variety troops in the field over a wide range of conditions and it
does not fire a battleworthy rifle cartridge. It is not capable of
reliably stopping enraged or drugged combatants with one bullet under all
conditions. It is a varmint round pure and simple.

Not true. It is very reliable when properly maintained. You are
bringing up tales from the initial fielding in the late 1950s/early
1960s. when the military told the soldiers it was a "self-cleaning"
weapon. Colt had also modified the receiver design.

Your 'expertise' with feral cats does not translate very well, Bratzi.

Here, these guys also seem to have some expertise with law enforcement
and feral animals:

"A well maintained AR is one of the most reliable gas-operated weapons
available for police use."

"When used within reasonable limits, say 200 yards, the .223/5.56mm
round strikes a hard blow on a human target. The late gun guru Jeff
Cooper called the round a “poodle shooter,” but I have to respectfully
disagree with the Colonel on this one. As a Deputy Sheriff in Wyoming,
I shot a number of 60 to 200 pound critters with 55 grain FMJ loads
and few traveled more than a couple of steps before going down."

[i.e. Go check out at what range most military firefights occur,
Bratzi. It isn't, BTW, at 600 meters. At that range and beyond there
are other weapons and tactics the infantry would use. I'd imagine the
same can be said for law enforcement.]

http://www.policeone.com/police-prod...062-M16-myths/

*There are few things as fun as nailing squirrels in the head at moderate
ranges with a .223 and cooking them tastily. I love squirrel stew and
squirrel chow mein. But I won't even shoot feral cats, much less deer,
with one.

Oh, you're in the mistaken "one shot, one kill" frame of reference.
Military firefights occur most often in very close quarters with
massed fire. A squad is nine people, Bratzi. Have nine people shoot a
deer at close quarters with an M-16 on automatic and tell me the
results. Not everybody is a friendless neo-Nazi like you are. ;-)

Also, see above. LOL!

*The minimum acceptable cartridge is one with at least 7mm bullet diameter
and muzzle energy in the class with a .243, .308 or 7.62x39 round.

According to who? Based on what? NATO had been toying with the idea of
a *smaller* caliber bullet along the lines of 4.5-4.8mm. What do they
know that you don't? LOL!

This
supposes a larger head diameter cartridge than the .223 and therefore
rebarreling the M16/AR-15 is not quite an option.

*FN/FAL, Galil, or HK rifle systems are all far, far better choices as
would be a lightened M14/M1A or other Garand derivatives. Moving NATO from
.308 to 7mm08 or .243 would be okay if a flatter shooting lighter recoiling
round were needed.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You and 2pid are
peas in a pod: no real-world expertise, and lots of pretending.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 18, 8:15*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 17, 1:32*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On May 17, 3:02*pm, ScottW wrote:

On May 17, 12:55*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 17, 10:19*am, ScottW wrote:

On May 17, 5:22*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 16, 9:58*am, ScottW wrote:

On May 15, 7:52*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 15, 8:44*pm, RapidRonnie wrote:

*The Navy Aviator's Creed states:

BTW, here is the latest "Soldier's Creed":

I am an American Soldier.
I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the
United States, and live the Army Values.
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.

*****r is 0 fer all the above.

I am, was, or will be an American Soldier.

2pid is zero for all of the above. LOL!

Which of us quit?

Neither of us, 2pid.

You never served, I retired.

*So you quit on your own protest. *I see.

Wrong again, service evader.

Retiring has nothing to do with "quitting". No matter how stupid you
are, even you must get this.

*It has nothing to do with protesting either.

Not entirely, no. There were, as I've said, many reasons that went
into my decision (which was *my* decision. You see, 2pid, you never
had that decision to make because you entirely deeked serving like the
selfish little coward that you are. LOL!).

I knew you were full of crap on that, nice to
see you finally admit it.

I owe you nothing, 2pid. No matter how much you rant and rave, I owe
you absolutely nothing. And you have no leg to stand on regarding
criticizing my choice to retire when I did. You apparently couldn't
pass the entrance exams. That is the only possible reason, given your
demeanor, that you weren't able to serve beyond the 22 years that I
did.

OTOH, 2pid, you owe me my nice life-long pension with health benefits.
Your tax dollars at work, 2pid. Doesn't that just burn you? The
government says I've done my part and they allowed me to retire
honorably with full benefits and a chestful of medals and you want to
weep and wail that I haven't done my part and that I deserve no
benefits. You lose, 2pid. I win. ;-)

I gave most of my reasons for retiring (which, no matter how hard you
try to say otherwise, is not "quitting"). You have latched on to one
small aspect and locked your jaws around it like a chew toy for the
brainless little puppy dog that you are. Yap yap yap.

On one hand, you rant against those without firm "ideals". OTOH, you
rant against those that do. Make up your 'mind', 2pid. Bark bark bark.

You have proven yourself a dimwit, and you continue to do so. Why do
you persist? You only look (even more) stupid.

So tell me, 2pid: is someone who leaves your employer through
retirement (IOW, after fully paying their "dues" to your employer) a
"quitter"? Is your buddy Clyde a "quitter" for choosing to retire?

Those are "yes" or "no" questions, 2pid. I thought I'd spell that out
for you before you stupidly veered off onto another one of your inane
side topics.

Duh. What an imbecile.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

You have proven yourself a dimwit, and you continue to do so. Why do
you persist? You only look (even more) stupid.

Scottie imagines himself to be the harsh taskmaster who doles out pain and
punishment. Do you see it differently?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 18, 9:06*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Shhhh! said:

You have proven yourself a dimwit, and you continue to do so. Why do
you persist? You only look (even more) stupid.

Scottie imagines himself to be the harsh taskmaster who doles out pain and
punishment. Do you see it differently?

Well, I am getting a lot of laugh lines in my face...