[68skylark]

That is potentially good news to Lockheed Martin, which lost the MMA bid to Boeing, but hardly for the US.

Let's not forget what's good for U.S. taxpayers and U.S. citizens who value their freedom. It's probably best if we hold our defense spending to current levels of GDP, and it's probably best if we spend it in the best way to fight the war on terrorism.

This means tough choices and cuts in some cool, big-ticekt weapon systems like the F-22 and others. I'm glad the Bush admin. is willing to make the hard choices.

[fooman]

F22 cuts are horrific. Military spending spending is only 3.8 %
of GDP. Iraq should start pay for its own defense. Period.

This is also different from the WOT.

The military is one of the few areas of government that drive innovaion (computer, internet, space program etc). Cutting our military not only affects our security, but also our competiviness economically.

[rmmcdaniell]

Let's not forget what's good for U.S. taxpayers and U.S. citizens who value their freedom. It's probably best if we hold our defense spending to current levels of GDP, and it's probably best if we spend it in the best way to fight the war on terrorism.

This means tough choices and cuts in some cool, big-ticekt weapon systems like the F-22 and others. I'm glad the Bush admin. is willing to make the hard choices.

As if the only enemy in the world was a bunch of sheep-herders with AK-47s. China loves idiots like you and Bush.

[fallujah-nuker]

"Let's not forget what's good for U.S. taxpayers and U.S. citizens who value their freedom. It's probably best if we hold our defense spending to current levels of GDP, and it's probably best if we spend it in the best way to fight the war on terrorism.

This means tough choices and cuts in some cool, big-ticekt weapon systems like the F-22 and others. I'm glad the Bush admin. is willing to make the hard choices."

So air superiority is a luxury nowadays?