From: mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas)
Subject: Re: Perot
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 03:32:43 GMT
Organization: StarNine Technologies, Inc.

In article <jayson.03ac@tbag.tscs.com> jayson@tbag.tscs.com (Jayson Phillips) writes:
>>Subject: Re: Perot ?
>>From: jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan)
>>Date: 22 Aug 92 03:44:32 GMT
>>Organization: FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City NJ
>>
>>mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas) writes:
>>
>>>>  The Osprey and the Bradley fighting vehicle are not examples of high tech
>>>>wizardry, they are both failures, technically and economically (except for t
>>>>people employed to build them).
> 
>Not  to  mention  the Patriot Missile which, during the Gulf War, failed to
>hit a single scud, contrary to to popular myth and lies spouted by Bush and
>his  generals  at  the  time.  The army has since stated that "...  we have
>high  confidence in 10% of the targets the Patriots were fired at..." which
>means they don't know for sure if they actually hit any targets.

Oh... now the liberals are saying that the Patriot didn't hit a
SINGLE scud!  The number keeps getting lower and lower!  Next, it
will be negative!

What nonsense!  (unsustantiated nonsense)

> 
>>>Even if we assume this is true... you are bitching because something
>>>less than 100% of military research is successful.  Of course there
>>>are failures.  We can't all be perfect like you.
>>
>>  You missed the point by close to a continent.  It's not the R&D that was
>>a failure, it was the procurement system within the Pentagon that allowed
>>those systems to be put into production as the R&D on those systems indicated
>>that they were not worthwhile.
> 
>The  procuement  system is the reason we have such an inflated military and
>such  an  inflated  military  industrial  complex.

Sorry.  The military complex is NOT inflated.  It is less than 30% of the
federal budget.  Now SOCIAL programs make up just about the remaining
70%.  THERE's the inflated financial abortion of modern times (since
FDR).

>Of course we need some
>military for our country's defense.  However, Bush and his rich friends use
>this  excsessive military power for personal agin and control of the world.

Not.  Where do you get this garbage?

>That's  the  name  of  the game.  And all those who make the money from the
>procurement system support it.  Money talks, albeit too loud somtimes.

Money ALWAYS talks.  We live in a capitalistic society.  Seems to work
the best (unless you call the death of socialism "working").

> 
>>[stuff deleted]
>>
>>>A great deal of the R&D IS worthwhile...much more than is not.>  ALL R&D is worthwhile, so long as the results are used properly.
> 
>Lots  of  R&D  is  not worthwhile, as those doing it will tell you.  R&D is
>part  of the inflated procurement system and people get paid lots for doing
>it.  Some is worth while, some is not.

Lot's is... Lot's isn't... your goal is to bash the military.

> 
>>  When the research tells you that a system, be it a vehicle, aircraft or
>>weapon says that it is impractical, unweildy or overy complex for field
>>use, the only rational decision is to drop the program.>>But the fact that the evil empire is dead is an excellent side-effect.
>>>(I hope the term "evil empire" doesn't piss you off too much).
> 
>With "evil empire" are you refering to Reagan/Bush or what?

No, I mean communism...you remember the U.S.S.R, don't you (how
quickly they forget).  Don't you read the papers?

> 
>>>And we destroyed that monster without firing a t... but by simply
>>>turning up the military R&D.
> 
>Actully,  shit-for-brains,  the  Soviet  people  took back their country on
>their  own  without US gov help.

Not at all.  The soviet peoples were so oppressed, they had not a
chance of taking anything back.  It took the collapse of
the oppressive regime, now they stand around confused wondering
what to do.  The soviet people don't have the ability to control
anything, cause they let themselves be totally controlled.
There was no social revolution in USSR...just the total inability
of the socialist system to function.

>Something we should do in this country if
>only  enough of us had the balls to get together and do it.

Best done by throwing out that piece-of-shit, Congress.
Oh yeah, I forgot to call you shit-for-brains, but then again
I don't have to name-call because my arguments aren't valueless
like yours.


>It's high time
>the  "top  5%"  start  paying  their share.

The top 5% pay MORE than their share.  They create business, jobs,
and provide the ONLY path to personal security.

It's the idiotic social programs of this country, always giving everything
away to those which DON'T contribute that aren't doing anything
worthwhile.

It's the fool congressman who are only concerned with being 
re-elected (fat chance, now I would say) that are not only NOT doing
their jobs, but performing great harm.

Bash the rich.  bash the military.  Keep going...


>It's high time that people are
>allowed  to  get back to work and allowed to make a decent living, not this
>$4.50 - $5.00/hr  slave  wage  crap that makes the rich richer and the poor
>poorer.


Liberals need to get off the backs of business.  Then the jobs will
appear.  It's so simple.  All the rules & regulations break the
backs of those who SHOULD be producing jobs, but can't afford to
expand.  California is the best current case in point.  The businesses
are moving away in droves because of all the governmental regulation.

So don't bitch there are no jobs.  It's our own fault.


> 
>>  I think the next few years is going to prove that we were a tad better
>>off with the Soviets around.  Their collapse couldn't have come at a wo
>>time, it robbed us of being able to retool the military industrial complex
>>without high unemployment or great expense.
> 
>You're  50  years  behind  the  times.   The  US  gov  has continuosly been
>retooling  the  military  since WWII.

And it's a good thing too.

>The pace was stepped up a bit during
>Reagan/Bush  administrations.  Heck, you never know when you might  need to
>go  stomp on some small country for the sake of personal (and/or corporate)
>gain.

Or for reasons of national security.  Corporate America is why this country
is as prosperous as it is.  Now liberals like you have screwed that up,
by your constant bashing and funneling money to non-productive causes.


> 
>To  see  where  US  jobs  are  going note that GM now has 13 auto plants in
>Mexico,  11  auto plants in Chile, and is negotiating with Poland and China
>to build auto plants in these countries also. (Maybe others too)

Of course.  there's too much liberal-minded governmental regulation.
What the hell do you expect to happen?

Make it again profitable for business to bring the jobs back
here.  You can't legislate this behavior.

> 
>>>The fact that militarily, no other country is respected as we are
>>>another positive side-effect.
> 
>Japan  and  Taiwan are respected much more than the US even tho they rarely
>bomb smaller countries into corporate submission.

Yeah, I see how Japan and Tiawan were so infulential in the Gulf war.
And we don't bonb countries into "corporate submission".  There have
been untold american corporations that have lost major plants & other
facilities when some 3rd-world country nationalized.

It was the USSR that militarily took over small countries.  We don't do that.
We only become involved when it's an issue of national security, and
we always give the country back.  You're really confused with these
issues.

> 
>>  Glad you put that military disclaimer in there... ;-)
>>
>>  The sad fact is that very few countries have a good opinion of us,
>>we're tolerated more than respected. The assinine goings on in Washington
>>only strengthen that opinion.
>>
>>  You gain respect leading by example, not by forcing people to behave in
>>ways that you're not capable of yourself.
> 
>Well stated.

Well stated?  I wish someone would explain what that means, with an
example of where we fail at that.

> 
>>>The weapons that cow-towed Iraq so easily and quickly are the result
>>>of that R&D.  The deterrent we pose to terrorist nations is an
>>>excellent side-effect.
> 
>Pu-lease  give  me a break.  The US and it's highly paid (many billions $$)
>mob of coalition countries out numbered Sadam's army 10 to 1 and out gunned
>his  army  &  air force 100 to 1.  And "terrorism" is merely a propagandist
>term for warfare waged by a small country without a powerful military.

Spoken like a true terrorist.  Remember how we gave Saddam warning
upon warning, even announced to the day when the US forces would attack?

Remember how terrorist attack CIVILIAN establishments and constantly
kill innocent people...no emphasis on military targets at all?
Don't glorify terrorism... it doesn't become an American to do so.
Of course, you may not be an American.

> 
>>  Last I heard Saddam was still boppin' around, that tells me the job wasn't
>>finished.  Sure, we gave Kuwait back to the rightful owners, but we haven't
>>removed the threat for the future.
> 
>Wether  the job was finished or not depends on what the job was supposed to
>be.   Sadam could have been bombed into submission in 3 days.  Instead, the
>entire country (only 17 million, oops 16 mil now) was bombed for 7 weeks by
>the largest airforce on the planet.  Obviously the purpose of this military
>action  was  to  destroy  Iraq  even tho "We have no quarrel with the Iraqi
>people."

Bullcrap.  If the purpose was to destroy Iraq, why is Suddam still
in power?  Your statements are a series of contradictions.
"...most pwerful airforce on the planet..." yet he's still in
power?

And what are your military qualifications for coming up with that
"3 days" estimate?  This is pur poppycock...completely unsubstantiated
and only the typical America-bashing that the ultra-left loves to do.

The purpose of Desert Storm was to get Iraq out of Kuwait.  It was
a complete success.  If Suddam had left earlier, less people would
have been killed.

>Rightful  owners?   The  Kuwait territory used to be part of Iraq
>until the British "drew a line in the sand." It's not at all obvious that a
>single  royal  family  is  the  rightful  owner of Kuwait.

It seems to have been clear to Iraq, who had financial dealings
with Kuwait for many years.

>Incidently, the
>Kuwaits actaully made the first agressive action by putting settlements and
>drilling  for  oil  in  the  buffer  zone  between  the two countires.  Not
>military agression, but agression none the less.

Even if this were true (and I never heard of it), it was not
miltary agression, and there are many ways to settle such disputes.
Saddam never approached the UN with any complaint of this nature.

As I remember it, Iraq was in terrible financial difficulty, and simply
wanted to aquire Kuwait's riches by force.  It seemed like easy
pickings, but it ended up not so easy, eh?

> 
>>  And,  if  there is a next time, there just might be a few ex-Soviet nukes
>>that  surprizingly  come  into  play courtesy of that Russian collapse that
>>you're so proud of...
>>
>>  -jack-
> 
>The  Soviet  collapse  was  a  financial  one.  The US is also headed for a
>financial collapse.  However, those with money are likely not to notice it.
>And yes, there are nukes out there.  (nukes, nukes, who's got the nukes?)
> 

Exactly why we have to keep a strong military, always.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy