lawmakers finally see the light

[JimNtexas]

That would be as admitted by no less than the USAF after the recent ass waxing by the Indian Air Force. Prior to that, the Luftwaffe rountinely delivered ass spankings with their Migs.

I don't belive that "ass waxing" story one bit, because I've seen the same story appear every two years since I first joined AFROTC in 1970.

Here is what happens in every case:

1) Some other country is invited to exercise with our guys. They are given very favorable ROE, and often the other country has full GCI and our guys have none, or the other side gets BVR but our guys don't.

2) The exercise happens, and the other country gets some shots off on our guys.

3) The Air Force runs up to Congress, wailing, tearing their clothes, streaming tears, crying that "look this little jack s**t country waxed our ass.....GIVE US MORE MONEY FOR THE F-22!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's just the Air Force scamming congress.

The whole air-to-air game is way overrated, we waste far to much money on it. Missiles like AMRAAM and the latest flavors of the AIM-9 can do the little bit of dogfighting that may be needed in the future.

 

[bocefus]

The point is, there is some pretty capable equipment produced by other countries. Evaluation of this equipment by methods other than joint excercises indicates that in many cases the equipment is superior at meeting its intended mission as compared to the domestic equivalent. When this is the case and the equipment is cheaper than the US equivalent, should DOD be required to procure it?

 

[TonyC]

The point is, there is some pretty capable equipment produced by other countries. Evaluation of this equipment by methods other than joint excercises indicates that in many cases the equipment is superior at meeting its intended mission as compared to the domestic equivalent. When this is the case and the equipment is cheaper than the US equivalent, should DOD be required to procure it?

No. Neither should they be required to reject it.









.

 

[bocefus]

To date, no such requirement exists, nor is one proposed..

 

[TonyC]

To date, no such requirement exists, nor is one proposed..

I refer you to the first sentence of your first post of this thread.

 

[bocefus]

Legislation being proposed that would prevent DOD from procuring hardware systems from a manufacturer who receives state aid is quite different from "required to reject it". The beauty is that the legislation would no doubt be challenged in the courts and would bring out the ugly facts of "state aid". This would settle the Airbus versus Boeing subsidies dispute once and for all. After the facts are layed out, those such as yourself will be able to comprehend the reality as opposed to the hyperbole. That is of course if the WTC doesn't settle it first. Just so I understand your position clearly, should DOD only procure what is determined to be the best systems at the best price regardless of country of origin?

 

[TonyC]

Bocephus,


You posted an article that described a proposal that would PROHIBIT the purchase of tankers from Airbus. Do you understand that?


You said there is no requirement for, and no proposal to require, the DOD reject any product offerered by a company that receives state aid.

You're confused.



You suggest that "legislation [that] would no doubt be challenged in the courts [and] ... would bring out the ugly facts of 'state aid' ... [thereby] ... settl[ing] the Airbus versus Boeing subsidies dispute once and for all." What court are you thinking about, and how do you suppose they'll have any effect over Airbus and Boeing? I know you can't be talking about the "World Court," because you refer to that body separately.

You're confused.


When deciding which product the DOD should procure, it should consider:

- acquisition cost

- operating cost

- maintenance cost

- reliability

- performance

- corporate stability

- economic impact

- and a million other things...


The house bill proposes that all Airbus offers be automatically rejected. I believe such an approach is short-sighted. If Airbus has a better product, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, then we ought to purchase the Airbus product. If Boeing has a better product, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, then we ought to buy the Boeing product. No hyperbole there.

Still confused?





.
[Edited to add emphasis]

 

[bocefus]

The house bill proposes that all Airbus offers be automatically rejected. Really? Can you show us where the word Airbus is in the legislation text? Embraer, and Bombardier would be affected also.

I'm afraid it is you who is confused Tony. You cannot see the forest for the pretty trees in the way.

 

[TonyC]

The house bill proposes that all Airbus offers be automatically rejected.

Really? Can you show us where the word Airbus is in the legislation text? Embraer, and Bombardier would be affected also.

I'm afraid it is you who is confused Tony. You cannot see the forest for the pretty trees in the way.

(I took the liberty of fixing your quote tags to make my post more readable.)

Yes, Really! I'd be delighted to show you where the word Airbus is found in THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED. Paragraph four:

While the measure in the 2006 defence authorisation bill does not mention EADS, it prevents the Pentagon from buying goods from any company that receives state aid, which would target Airbus, EADS's parent company.

The language of the legislation does not have to contain the word Airbus to make my statement true. Substitute the name of any other manufacturer that fits the description ("company receives state aid") and the statement is just as valid.









.

 

[bocefus]

Tony ask one of your children, or maybe a neighbor's to explain the difference in the meanings of WOULD, COULD and SHOULD. Also ask them to explain to you how those affected by federal legislation would seek a remedy through the Federal Courts and the role of the courts in determining the validity of Federal legislation. Maybe ask them what sort of factual information would need to be established in order to arrive at a determination. Nahhhh, just keep getting your view of the world from Time magazine and your legal knowledge from Judge Judy.

 

[TonyC]

Tony ask one of your children, or maybe a neighbor's to explain the difference in the meanings of WOULD, COULD and SHOULD. Also ask them to explain to you how those affected by federal legislation would seek a remedy through the Federal Courts and the role of the courts in determining the validity of Federal legislation. Maybe ask them what sort of factual information would need to be established in order to arrive at a determination. Nahhhh, just keep getting your view of the world from Time magazine and your legal knowledge from Judge Judy.

I asked my first grader, and she said you're a moron.

She also said federal legislation and federal courts have no jurisdiction over companies located outside the United States. (She said Airbus is located outside the United States.)

She also said you must have missed the unit in English where the dipthong was discussed. Your screen name, she says, should be bocephus, not bocefus. Actually, she said it should be something else which she couldn't say, because she didn't want me to wash her mouth out with soap.



In the future, if you don't understand what an article says or means, don't bother posting it. Spare yourself the embarrassment.










.

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

I asked my first grader, and she said you're a moron.

Good one!

 

[bocefus]

I guess you will never understand how the US court system works when determining the validity or constitutionality of Federal Legislation. Apparently you are on the same intellectual level as your first grader. In the future, I suggest you expand your worldview from that of CNN.

 

[TonyC]

I guess you will never understand how the US court system works when determining the validity or constitutionality of Federal Legislation. Apparently you are on the same intellectual level as your first grader. In the future, I suggest you expand your worldview from that of CNN.

BoceFus,

We're proud of you that you've figured out that Federal Courts can review Federal Legislation. In fact, they can review legislation of states, counties and municipalities, as well, if it comes to that. None of them have jurisdiction over Airbus.



My first grader also wanted me to point this out: Do you realize your Avatar promotes a French clothing line? She said you probably don't, and she imagines you sitting there bellowing a hearty "Beavis and Butthead" chuckle that you've found those four letters jumbled together in a single word. You should have seen the eyeroll she did.


She's so darn cute!

 

[Hugh Jorgan]

Bocefus should stop digging. But I'm glad he won't as this public bitch-slap is very entertaining.