Forum: Off-topic

Quote:

"discofishing" American poverty and what the rest of the world considers poverty are different. 46 million is still hard to believe.

That is the current figure on your Media released this week. The result of a recent US Government Statistics. Released by whatever is the relevant US Gov. Agency.

It reported about 46million living on less than $11,000 US.
Families on $22,000 or less. Not a lot of money in a high cost country.

I am an Australian - we probably have a similar cost of living to the US.
Here you would starve on $11,000 let alone down to $5,000 as the report stated some receive.
Here a Single Pension is about $20,000AU with free medical and pharmacy etc. many other free services. Unemployment is about 5% less. Free Medical etc. and Education plus special allowances for each child in a family. A family here with say 3 children would get about $40,000AU [Our dollars are about parity] all up in income and benefits if mum and dad were both out of work.
Much of Europe is the same.
I was amazed also when I heard the figures.
We get one of your better more balanced TV News Reports here most week day afternoons.

It will be on the net I am sure.
It is time for the USA to look after its own.
Nobody wants the USA to go completely downhill.

F-16.net Sponsor

geogen wrote:

Thanks for the info on how your Poverty figure does not include food Stamps - The figures on poverty given by your News report failed to say the "Poor" in the US receive Food Stamps as well.
With food costs in the US similar to here that would have to add at least $2/3,000 for each person. Basic Food. [We do not have that - we just give money.

I don't think we disagree that much.

The main reason I come to these Forums is I like Planes. The way in which many USA "types" fail to give anybody else in the World credit for there achievements regarding aircraft etc. on these forums sometimes disappoints me and I do overreact. There belief all good technology comes from the USA is wrong and there belief the USA is always in the right is also wrong. Self-righteous. Very similar to the thinking of Muslim Extremists.

On technology just like China is now doing the USA for decades has either "copied" or "bought" in the expertise it did not have. The clever and wise thing to do. Because of the size of the USA economy they often were the ones with the money to bring it all together and come up with the final product. They had the dollars to do it. Many of the USA's greatest achievements have been based on brilliant foreign ideas and concepts.

e.g. Go back to the Nuclear Bomb - the USA paid most of the bill but would it have happened as quickly without the help of the best from around the world. The Space Race - how many more years without the help of the German Scientists would it have taken the USA to catch up to the USSR. They are just the big ones. The USSR got none of the scientists - a few technicians. Give the Russians some credit. They did it themselves with a fraction of the money the USA had in real terms. There scientists and engineers deserve RESPECT. Too many in the West fail to realize Chinese and Russians and Arabs and Persians etc. read and hear all these insults not based on the facts and a true understanding. I have been to Russia and China. Russia was no where near as closed as we liked to think. Russians were always aware of most of the distortions and half truths etc. uttered in the West. Often what they were told was far closer to the truth than what we were told. They get angry and have a right to get angry at the way we still distort many things and the way we continually like to tell them what they should do. The West hates it when someone like Putin tells them where they are wrong. It works both ways. Normally he is correct or at least has a reasoned point of view before he opens his mouth.
I don't blame him going off when the USA media and Politicians continually for at least 1week kept saying - "Russia has attacked Georgia" when they should have been saying "Georgia attacked -----" .The Chinese leadership also is a prime target. Most Chinese [90%easily] don't like us being critical of there leaders and our media [USA media - you can blame an ex. Aussie to a degree] continually distorting and miss-reporting all things Chinese. If Putin was so bad he would not stay at 80% approval [Morgan Gallop Poll International]. Gorbachev went down to 16% - Yeltsin to 6%. That's what the Russian people think. What right do we have to disagree with them? They certainly resent this arrogance on the part of the West - especially the USA and Britain and there media. France and Germany etc. are better. Russians in general respect Germany despite WW2. In many ways Putin is mild compared to the arrogance of many Western Politicians. One thing for sure - he is far more clever and intelligent. Russians also don't see Medvedev as a Putin pupet. They see him as a top Executive that sorted out the mess there Oil industry was in and as good Presidential material - a true leader with intelligence - a partner to help Putin sort out the mess Russia ended up in. It is arrogant for us to say he is simply a pupet of Putin. I don't think he is. They agree on most important things but have completely different agendas in many areas.

We all have to become one of the boys in the block - there is no longer room for a bully in the block. Respect is the new order of the day. It works both ways.

Quote:

China gives up support for N Korea and we stop propping up Taiwan.

Do you really think China genuinely supports North Korea. Sure they send food and necessary goods there but no arms.

I think China is simply being wise and diplomatic using typical Asian tolerance and patience to keep them onside until an opportunity comes along to remove the present N Korean leadership. When that happens I bet it will be the China who is the first to support a new more moderate regime. It may not be the ideal Democratic Government the West would like but anything similar to the one in China would be far better fro the World and the people of N Korea.

The Chinese along with Russia have understood there is no point trying to "bully" or "bribe" N Korea for a long time.

The last time China and Russia using diplomacy got them to close there Nuclear Plant the USA shortly after did try to bully them into not testing there new ballistic missile. What did that achieve - the opposite. N Korea launched the missile and started up there Reactor again.

The Chinese and Russian must have cursed the USA for that diplomatic blunder - giving them a reason to start it up again.
After all China and Russia and South Korea and Japan have to live near a Nuclear armed N Korea. Not the USA.

duplex wrote:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-16/obama-excludes-new-f-16s-in-taiwan-arms-package-times-says.html?cmpid=yhoo

As expected, I should say.. Rkap pal your post is utter nonsense nobody says China wants the USA to fail in an Economic sense.

if US and foreign markets dont have the money to buy cheap low-quality, crappy chinese goods than who will be facing a loss, any guesses?
chinese economy is dependent on the purchasing power of US so if the US goes bankrupt what will happen to their third class manufacturing industry that is making its economy grow by 9+% each year ?
A strong US administration would spurn China and go ahead with the sale ..

Right, and the US is better off if it goes bankrupt? Are you using this as a reason for us to continue spending so much money? And instead of trying to repay our massive debt now, we're going to let it grow until it's too late and the thing implodes?

So, yeah, this thread as one might be able to tell has completely derailed into the political aspects; as would be the natural slide of things of course, given such a thread - so no fault to human-nature... I'd only request to mods, that in the future, you could attempt more 'pre-emptive regulation' of such inevitable geopolitical battleground-type thread topics such as this and perhaps redirect them to the 'miscellaneous' forum? imho. Anyway, happy to debate these sorts of discussions out in the open here too, if it's ok, either way.

As to rkap, I think we actually do have some fundamental disagreements from the top down but I appreciate your very thoughtful and detailed position statement. I'll be happy to discuss any of your geopolitically, or historical based points further, either in PM or in the miscellaneous forums. But I'd actually offer a counter pespective to most of your personal perspectives, as you articulated them. So, it might be interesting to see how different views can be discussed rationally regardless of what your ethnic origins are, or mine... as we're both from planet Earth afterall and on this common thing called the global internet.

And an answer to disconnected: No. It's absolutely important that future US budgets include substantial reductions in defense spending - cuts that should have been more strategicaly forecasted 4-5 rs ago. We agree there. But once again (as this topic comes up from time to time) Defense cuts are really irrelevant as to what the greater long-term fiscal threats are to US's overall budgets. These 'other cuts' are from where US will need to better 'sustain' herself over the next 15-20 yrs, in order to come out the other end stronger. It's not about reducing deterrence or neglecting general balance of power, it's about how to sustain those attributes more cost-effectively with indefinitely smaller defense outlays. The current 'stay the course' mindset, vis-a-vis defense appropriations though, absolutely needs a game-change, no question.

geogen wrote:

And an answer to disconnected: No. It's absolutely important that future US budgets include substantial reductions in defense spending - cuts that should have been more strategicaly forecasted 4-5 rs ago. We agree there. But once again (as this topic comes up from time to time) Defense cuts are really irrelevant as to what the greater long-term fiscal threats are to US's overall budgets. These 'other cuts' are from where US will need to better 'sustain' herself over the next 15-20 yrs, in order to come out the other end stronger. It's not about reducing deterrence or neglecting general balance of power, it's about how to sustain those attributes more cost-effectively with indefinitely smaller defense outlays. The current 'stay the course' mindset, vis-a-vis defense appropriations though, absolutely needs a game-change, no question.

I must agree with you. I simply feel that we can already soundly defeat any other country's military and just have to maintain that instead of preparing for overkill. Regarding this discussion falling into a political argument, I find the title of this thread to be really politically provocative.

disconnectedradical wrote:

geogen wrote:

And an answer to disconnected: No. It's absolutely important that future US budgets include substantial reductions in defense spending - cuts that should have been more strategicaly forecasted 4-5 rs ago. We agree there. But once again (as this topic comes up from time to time) Defense cuts are really irrelevant as to what the greater long-term fiscal threats are to US's overall budgets. These 'other cuts' are from where US will need to better 'sustain' herself over the next 15-20 yrs, in order to come out the other end stronger. It's not about reducing deterrence or neglecting general balance of power, it's about how to sustain those attributes more cost-effectively with indefinitely smaller defense outlays. The current 'stay the course' mindset, vis-a-vis defense appropriations though, absolutely needs a game-change, no question.

I must agree with you. I simply feel that we can already soundly defeat any other country's military and just have to maintain that instead of preparing for overkill. Regarding this discussion falling into a political argument, I find the title of this thread to be really politically provocative.

But what if we get invaded by aliens???? Rolling Eyes

Seriously though. The latest thing the PRC has been able to build more than 1 or 2 of (J-10) is roughly comparable to the F-16s we've had since the mid-90s. I'm not too concerned about a combined F-22/F-35/F-16/F-15/FA-18 fleet being able to soundly whup the PLAAF's Russian knockoffs. More Raptors wouldn't hurt anyone, but it's not STRICTLY necessary against China, which still happens to be flying Fishbed copies.

On the purely technical and manufacturing-based side of your post, southern, I'll have to disagree with you on that point. It just seems as if your otherwise well-intentioned intel is off by around 5 yrs. So no offense, as I appreciate and often agree with many of your points of view... but it just seems as if the viewpoint noted is underestimating the reality on the ground today and in the near-future 'technically speaking'. imho.

Well China has somewhere near 200 J-10A's right now and the J-10B(Which is said to be a Gen 4.5 Fighter) is in development.

Along with close to 300 Su-27's (Counting J-11 and Su-27 as one) and 100 Su-30's

Thats already 600 4th Gen Fighters right there, plus the 500 3rd Gen fighters they have AND the 5th Gen J-20 on the way.

Thats a pretty beefy Airforce if you ask me. I don't see the U.S Airforce "Whooping" that sort of force with ease.

Quote:

So, yeah, this thread as one might be able to tell has completely derailed into the political aspects

Seems a fairly Political subject. "Obama surrenders to China". That is entirely a Political Question.

I fully concur with you that the Thread's headline as worded was unnecessary and indeed provocative. The subject could have been better discussed in a different forum too, perhaps in Airpower or the Miscellaneous section. It would inevitably devolve less into F-16 recap related discussions and nosedive into geopolitics and completely off-topic e.g. Korean Peninsula issues, etc, which mods tend to steer General F-16 discussion boards away from. Properly so, imho and is something which helps to foster an atmosphere one can better appreciate on this site. There will always be a great discussion and debate on greater Asian geopolitical and US policy issues, don't get me wrong - I'm very much interested in the subject and enjoy exchanges of viewpoints - but was voicing my opinion it wasn't the proper forum on this site.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Taiwan-ar ... 0&.v=2

Has OBAMA received approval from China for this one?

duplex wrote:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Taiwan-arms-package-value-rb-2195599949.html?x=0&.v=2

Has OBAMA received approval from China for this one?

THIS is the way to go: upgrades, sustainability and maintenance of existing assets, not substitution with fancy new ones which have little or no added value at a many fold times cost.

[quote="marco9"]

duplex wrote:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Taiwan-arms-package-value-rb-2195599949.html?x=0&.v=2

Has OBAMA received approval from China for this one?

Yes - a wise decision - cheaper also - the O'Bama administration showing Diplomacy and facing reality.
Something that has been missing for some time.
" Wisdom is ofttimes nearer when we stoop than when we soar."

Guess their own IDF mixed up with the F-16, but it's still funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gLFicPDB0s

Seriously, thanking China for only being a mild a$$hole over watered down arms sales to Taiwan?

http://www.sinodaily.com/reports/Panett ... e_999.html

What happens if China actually does something nice? Will Panetta get down and actually lick their boots then?

Forum: Off-topic

U.S. denies Taiwan's request under Chinese pressure