F-35 Purchase

[punked]

What were they supposed to do? Unless the British decided to invade Iceland, the US wasn't going to do anything.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/ice001.asp

The British sent ships into Icelands waters, where I come from that is an act of war. You would A-OK if say Russia started flying planes over our lands and parking ships off our coast? Again Iceland fought a war at a time the US were there and the US didn't do anything. You want to have it both ways don't you?

[Signals.Cpl]

And has a huge amount of resource wealth so why wouldn't they be the first target for the invasion that will never happen.

Because Russia has no claim on Iceland? While much of our territory in the north is claimed by other nations as well. Why has no one invaded the Vatican? After all its easy right, they have 300 soldiers and billions of dollars worth of art.

[punked]

They didn't fight a real war. They had nothing to fight a war with. And the reason the British backed down was not Icelandic naval prowess but because Iceland threatened to close the NATO base and pull out of NATO. At that time NATO figured it needed the Iceland base as a midpoint defense in any eventual war against Soviet submarines.

I agree Iceland used their leverage over NATO to win a war fought with one of the worlds great super powers. I fail to see how this gives you are stronger argument about buying these planes.

[Argus]

Doesn't matter because they didn't say "give us only these documents in regards to the F35s". They said "give us all the documents" which the AG told us the other day they didn't do. That is hiding sorry. They had documents which pertained to the F35s and when parliament said hand them over they didn't. It is that simple.

I really am not interested in long discussions if the whole point is an irrelevant technicality which has no affect, influence or importance to the matter at hand.

The F-35s cost what they cost. The government was reasonably honest on that score. The ongoing costs of bases etc. is not an element of that cost as far as I'm concerned, so there's nothing here to get excited about.

[Argus]

I agree Iceland used their leverage over NATO to win a war fought with one of the worlds great super powers. I fail to see how this gives you are stronger argument about buying these planes.

Is your argument that we don't need a military? Because that is a different argument.

[punked]

Because Russia has no claim on Iceland? While much of our territory in the north is claimed by other nations as well. Why has no one invaded the Vatican? After all its easy right, they have 300 soldiers and billions of dollars worth of art.

So planes will stop Russia from taking our land which is resource rich, but Iceland is a special case because it doesn't make your argument stronger? Seriously!?! This is what you believe?

[Argus]

The British sent ships into Icelands waters, where I come from that is an act of war. You would A-OK if say Russia started flying planes over our lands and parking ships off our coast? Again Iceland fought a war at a time the US were there and the US didn't do anything. You want to have it both ways don't you?

If the British sent ships in and opened fire and sank Icelandic vessels that would be a war.

And again, let's be plain. If the British wanted to they could have simply sunk every ship the Icelanders have, right down to rowboats, occupied the place, and taken it over, pretty much effortlessly. Portraying this as some sort of doughty stand against a 'superpower' by those ferocious Icelanders, who somehow fought off the British is silly.

[punked]

Is your argument that we don't need a military? Because that is a different argument.

No my argument is their are counties with much smaller Military spending then ours that are just fine. So the idea that we could spend less isn't an outrages claim as most around here like to say. It is that the whole argument that people in this thread make is wrong and we can just look to other countries with less military spending and see their world hasn't fallen apart and that the Commies haven't moved in.

My argument is we need to move away from the cold war and look to really is our enemy and stop boxing with shadows.

[Signals.Cpl]

The British sent ships into Icelands waters, where I come from that is an act of war. You would A-OK if say Russia started flying planes over our lands and parking ships off our coast? Again Iceland fought a war at a time the US were there and the US didn't do anything. You want to have it both ways don't you?

So what do you make of the treaty the US signed with Iceland? Was Iceland ever in danger of invasion? And it was Iceland that "fired the first shot". This "war" was never anything more then Iceland giving Britain the finger and the British decided to have expensive exercises in the are.

[punked]

If the British sent ships in and opened fire and sank Icelandic vessels that would be a war.

And again, let's be plain. If the British wanted to they could have simply sunk every ship the Icelanders have, right down to rowboats, occupied the place, and taken it over, pretty much effortlessly. Portraying this as some sort of doughty stand against a 'superpower' by those ferocious Icelanders, who somehow fought off the British is silly.

They Rammed Iceland vessels which is an act of war. Might be why we call it the Cod War and not the Cod dispute eh?

[punked]

So what do you make of the treaty the US signed with Iceland? Was Iceland ever in danger of invasion? And it was Iceland that "fired the first shot". This "war" was never anything more then Iceland giving Britain the finger and the British decided to have expensive exercises in the are.

All I know is the US left Iceland in 2006 and yet it hasn't fallen.

[Signals.Cpl]

No my argument is their are counties with much smaller Military spending then ours that are just fine. So the idea that we could spend less isn't an outrages claim as most around here like to say. It is that the whole argument that people in this thread make is wrong and we can just look to other countries with less military spending and see their world hasn't fallen apart and that the Commies haven't moved in.

My argument is we need to move away from the cold war and look to really is our enemy and stop boxing with shadows.

And there are countries with much more spending then us, and they are fine as well, Whats your point? Why don't we have 3 million soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines like the US?

[Argus]

No my argument is their are counties with much smaller Military spending then ours that are just fine.

Your use of Iceland as an example is hardly one to substantiate "many countries". Iceland is, as I've said, a virtual protectorate, not to mention the size of a city, mostly uninhabitable, and surrounded by nothing. Now if it turned out there was lots of oil a hundred and fifty miles off their coast, and they weren't protected by the US how long do you think they'd be able to protect their claim to those waters?

My argument is we need to move away from the cold war and look to really is our enemy and stop boxing with shadows.

By doing what? Not having fighter aircraft?

[punked]

And there are countries with much more spending then us, and they are fine as well, Whats your point? Why don't we have 3 million soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines like the US?

They are fine but spend less in other areas. Which is my point it is Guns or Butter not Guns or Guns. If you spend more on one you must spend less on the other and that is a discussion this country should have.

[Signals.Cpl]

My argument is we need to move away from the cold war and look to really is our enemy and stop boxing with shadows.

Who is our enemy?

[punked]

Your use of Iceland as an example is hardly one to substantiate "many countries". Iceland is, as I've said, a virtual protectorate, not to mention the size of a city, mostly uninhabitable, and surrounded by nothing. Now if it turned out there was lots of oil a hundred and fifty miles off their coast, and they weren't protected by the US how long do you think they'd be able to protect their claim to those waters?

By doing what? Not having fighter aircraft?

I also pointed out the Swiss who you seem to point to spends less then us as well. Both as a percent GPD and a nominal figure. THAT IS THE POINT. We don't need to spend like the US just because we are close to them. We get to make our own decisions as a country and spend what we want.

[Argus]

All I know is the US left Iceland in 2006 and yet it hasn't fallen.

Iceland has a defensive treaty with the US and is a member of NATO.

And realistically, who'd want the place?

[Argus]

I also pointed out the Swiss who you seem to point to spends less then us as well. Both as a percent GPD and a nominal figure. THAT IS THE POINT. We don't need to spend like the US just because we are close to them. We get to make our own decisions as a country and spend what we want.

And I pointed out the Swiss actually have a bigger armed forces, and bigger reserves than we do, even though they're a quarter our size. They simply have way smaller air space to patrol, and no oceans to patrol or defend.

We are not spending anything like the US.

[punked]

Who is our enemy?

From what I have seen in the last 10 years. Our enemy comes from loosely knit, poorly organized, small groups of extremists who plane on their own and act on their own in the name of a greater cause. No amount of war planes is going to scare them off. In the last 10 years I haven't seen Russia do anything although I have seen extremists do a lot targeting the free world. So I really don't follow this war plane thing in the 21st century.

[punked]

And I pointed out the Swiss actually have a bigger armed forces, and bigger reserves than we do, even though they're a quarter our size. They simply have way smaller air space to patrol, and no oceans to patrol or defend.

We are not spending anything like the US.

I also pointed out why the Swiss have a bigger armed force because they draft men at age 18. Not only that because they draft people in order to go to war or have military action they must go to a referendum. Meaning the people who will actually fight the war decide to go to war. Which is why they never go to war.

[Signals.Cpl]

They didn't have to check or go hunting for anything. Our parliament asked for all the documents and didn't get them all. They didn't say "Give us all the documents accept the ones that buried somewhere" they said send them all. What part of that don't you understand?

So answer this, the next time that the Military buys uniforms, do we have to include in the price, the people who are going to use them(wearing) and the people who will be issuing them out(Supply Technicians) and the price of the flags and rank slip-ons.

Saying that the F-35 costs 25 billion dollars is misleading. If you want to say that figure you have to inform that its not extra, that it has been accounted for. Otherwise you are blaming the government for lying while you are supporting a lie.

[Signals.Cpl]

From what I have seen in the last 10 years. Our enemy comes from loosely knit, poorly organized, small groups of extremists who plane on their own and act on their own in the name of a greater cause. No amount of war planes is going to scare them off. In the last 10 years I haven't seen Russia do anything although I have seen extremists do a lot targeting the free world. So I really don't follow this war plane thing in the 21st century.

Who was out enemy on September 10 ,2001?

[punked]

So answer this, the next time that the Military buys uniforms, do we have to include in the price, the people who are going to use them(wearing) and the people who will be issuing them out(Supply Technicians) and the price of the flags and rank slip-ons.

Saying that the F-35 costs 25 billion dollars is misleading. If you want to say that figure you have to inform that its not extra, that it has been accounted for. Otherwise you are blaming the government for lying while you are supporting a lie.

If parliament asks the government to include those costs then yes they better damn well include those costs. A democracy doesn't work if the government gets to not listen to the people. Sorry that is wrong.

[punked]

Who was out enemy on September 10 ,2001?

The same people who were attack the free world in the 90s. Loosely knit, poorly organized groups of extremists. You think 2001 was the first attack from these people. I will tell you who wasn't attack the free world in the 90s the communists that is for sure.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

If parliament asks the government to include those costs then yes they better damn well include those costs. A democracy doesn't work if the government gets to not listen to the people. Sorry that is wrong.

I must agree.