From: jayson@tbag.tscs.com (Jayson Phillips)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: RE: Perot
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:31:57 EST
Organization: Tampa Bay Amiga Group

>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.
 
>>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.   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.
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.
 
>[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.
 
>  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?
 
>>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.  Something we should do in this country if
only  enough of us had the balls to get together and do it.  It's high time
the  "top  5%"  start  paying  their share.  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.
 
>  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.  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.
 
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)
 
>>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.
 
>  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.
 
>>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.
 
>  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."  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.  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.
 
>  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?)
 
 Jay Phillips Tampa FL
 Amiga 3000 25Mhz/105HD/10MB
 USENET: tbag!jayson@tscs.com

--- Via UCI v1.02 (C-Net Amiga)

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.misc