Flashback: Reagan on Unions...

[Trident1]

You (and others) theorize what the Soviets feared and responded to in order to make the story sound better. But all we know for certain is they were in decline already and spending more money than they had sustaining a multi-year war in Afghanistan.

If anything the 'Cold War' was won in the '70s when Soviet technological advances in agriculture and commercial industry fell behind at the expense of their military.









Well it was Reagan who decried a policy of 'cut and run' in coining the phrase by vowing to stay and fight only to withdraw days later. Rightly or wrongly it's his withdrawal then that is seen by many as having emboldened terrorists.

No Mega the Cold War was won in the '80s. The military was behind the curve in the '80s and tried to catch up to our "offensive threat" which they never managed to do by the time the game was up in 1989. Reagan's military program roared ahead as early as '81 and caught the Soviets off guard.

As for Beirut, Reagan did something that was very new which was "peace keeping". We sent troops and so did the French to try and separate the warring factions fighting since '75. Nobody had any idea that we would end up being the targets. We know about the dangers of peace keeping today but were clueless in 1983.
Regan had no choice to "cut and run". As you may remember, Vietnam was very fresh in the minds of Americans and nobody wanted another mission without an exit strategy. So he "cut".

 

[ragincaucasian]

with regard to Reagan, it seems like we're going to continue to project an image contrary to reality, because, apparently, there is some serious incentive to make his cult of personality icon status (if this isn't true, then......). vv/trident/cunningstunts will continue to push this unqualifiable talking point ("he broke the Ruskies with spending") without ever pointing out any facts, direct causation, or rationale while completely ignoring other dispassioned events that can be shown to be the causation for Soviet demise. Its like explaining how you got a stomach illness due to bacteria contamination, took antibiotics to fight it, and then got better - while someone else tells you you're full of ****, "no way", they say, "I got ill because I sinned, and I got better because I prayed".

If we're talking about LEADERSHIP, per se....I suppose the best way to judge the tough decisions of leadership by their effects down the road. Well, examine all the tough decisions we had to make during the 80s...Understanding events in history within context is whats important here. Many of the things Reagan is lauded for (made an icon for) didn't exist in a vacuum. Many of the critical issues we are dealing with today (middle east, oil dependency, derivatives market/corporate reach, american exceptionalism, inner-city **** epidemic, 'war on *****'/'war on terrur', energy, etc) are all the result of the actions taken during the Reagan administration


Renewable energy, dependence on foreign oil, survival of the middle class, unaccountable government enabling corporate victimizing (treating corporations as citizens with rights)......ALL decisions abdicated during the Reagan administration and we're suffering as a result of it.

Reagan WAS a fantastic and wonderful politician and can certainly be celebrated for being one of the best. He and his administration heightened what campaigning and spinning to new levels.
That, unfortunately, isn't actually an admirable quality

Many of the reasons folks use to worship Reagan never are able to be quantified with any examination.



If you want to actually have a discussion on the Wisconsin revolt (#1 don't start the thread with something that has nothing to do with it), then it would be nice to examine the historical context of what is taking place, and realize #1 that neither 'sides' are being pushed from some benign ideology or belief system.
#1 - Wisconsin needs to rectify their budget; how much does Walker measure actually address the bottom line, and would this action be taken even if there was a budget surplus? Look at the budget before Walker took office and see if 'that money' was there in another ledger?

#2 -Look at Hot Mega's post about how this (public sector jobs) is supposed to work. Public sector jobs were never meant to be economically wonderful careers, however, (because we're lacking historical context) the globalization of markets has lead private sector jobs grow cheaper and cheaper every year (wonder why). Shouldn't we be addressing that? It wasn't always 'this way' (why hasn't private sector jobs kept their lead over public sector jobs?).

Also, from a historical perspective, it would be helpful to recognize that ALL of the revolts we're seeing in the middle east (as well as in Asia and Europe) are directly connected to whats going on in Wisconsin. They are all related by one common principle; the loss of civic voice/representation due to economic disenfranchisement by corporate power and corruption.

 

[emceeemcee]

The Soviets didn't even come up with a timetable for withdrawal until late '87.

For the third time:


Archival evidence now shows that Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev decided to withdraw from Afghanistan a year before the mujahideen fired their first Stinger in September 1986
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...inging-rebukes

Show you evidence?

So you won't be providing any and will go with the facepalm hissy fit instead..

 

[Hot Mega]

No Mega the Cold War was won in the '80s. The military was behind the curve in the '80s and tried to catch up to our "offensive threat" which they never managed to do by the time the game was up in 1989. Reagan's military program roared ahead as early as '81 and caught the Soviets off guard.

'roared ahead'?? Reagan's initiatives were based on two premises; The US had fallen behind and a nuke war with the Soviets could be won by either side.

Neither perspective has a basis in reality. Speaking of no basis in reality, Reagan took office in '81. How could anything in the way of tangible capability roar ahead of the Soviets that same year?? I suppose you didn't expect that part to be actually read by anyone.

Because of war their military most likely was falling behind the curve. But as far as the way it actually mattered, not at all. The Soviets still retained fail deadly response capability...which was the whole point of the MAD doctrine.

As for Beirut, Reagan did something that was very new which was "peace keeping". We sent troops and so did the French to try and separate the warring factions fighting since '75. Nobody had any idea that we would end up being the targets. We know about the dangers of peace keeping today but were clueless in 1983.

Regan had no choice to "cut and run". As you may remember, Vietnam was very fresh in the minds of Americans and nobody wanted another mission without an exit strategy. So he "cut".

:dunno: I said rightly or wrongly. Just pointing out how he coined the phrase in saying what he wouldn't do and then did just that days later.

 

[girk1]

What was he supposed to do in Beirut after the Marine barracks were hit? The French lost 58 that day as well from a suicide bomber.
How do you deal with a suicide bomber? No one had even dealt with such a phenomena before.
We returned fire on Syrian positions in self defense in September after repeatedly taking fire from them.
So what were we supposed to do after the Barracks in October? Get more involved? Nobody wanted to get "more" involved after Vietnam which was very fresh in everyone's mind in 1983.

More "Monday Night Quarterbacking"

Monday Morning Quarterbacking my ass.

Secretary of Defense(Casper Weinberger) literally begged Reagan not to send troops into Beirut & 'pleaded'(in his own words) with Reagan to pull them back ,but he kept up his Neo con Bullshit that "Marines don't cut & Run"


Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger says;

"I wasn't persuasive enough to persuade The President(Reagan) that
the Marines were there on an IMPOSSIBLE MISSION". That's not Monday Morning Quarterbacking. That was sound fucking advice about an IMPOSSIBLE MISSION before hand.

Weinberger also states that even when the Marines arrived there and he assessed the situation:

"I begged the President(Reagan).....to pull them(Marines) back".


Even France retaliated with airstrikes against Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard & the U.S. (President Reagan) did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING,but got 300 people ****** & tucked his wrinkled, dried up , ossificated balls between his legs & left without doing ANYTHING(NOTHING).

Had that been Jimmy Carter the WAR mongering Neo Cons would not let him EVER live it down & been a sign of 'liberals weakness'. Though I doubt Carter would have been foolish enough to send the MArines there in the first place. Wise enough to know it's a no win battle.


What was Reagan supposed to do? NOT send the Marines there in the first place & his Secretary of Defense WARNED him against going & pleaded with him to pull them out BEFORE they were bombed.



But 9/11 has proved to us that it is hard to reason with WAR MONGERING NEO CONS when they are bent on war when they invaded Iraq who had nothing to do with the Trade Centers coming down.

So please stop this nonsense about how Reagan stood up & would "never retreat" , "never cut & run from terrorist" & showed terrorist he wasn't weak when he ACTUALLY "CUT & RUN".

Ronald Reagan actually began the EMBOLDENMENT of terrorists & demonstrated how they can ****** a super Power.

 

[Trident1]

'roared ahead'?? Reagan's initiatives were based on two premises; The US had fallen behind and a nuke war with the Soviets could be won by either side.

Neither perspective has a basis in reality. Speaking of no basis in reality, Reagan took office in '81. How could anything in the way of tangible capability roar ahead of the Soviets that same year?? I suppose you didn't expect that part to be actually read by anyone.

Because of war their military most likely was falling behind the curve. But as far as the way it actually mattered, not at all. The Soviets still retained fail deadly response capability...which was the whole point of the MAD doctrine.



:dunno: I said rightly or wrongly. Just pointing out how he coined the phrase in saying what he wouldn't do and then did just that days later.

Yes in 1981 the military defense budget is doubled. The B-1 bomber is put back on track. R&D into the neutron bomb is authorized and work for a 600 ship Navy begins. That's roaring ahead.

Btw the Soviets had strategists who believed a nuclear exchange was winnable.


Oh girk1 the Navy launched airstrikes and ship bombardment against Syrian positions from December '83 to Feb '84. At the time a plan was in the works to hit Hezbollah training facilities but no one was certain Iran was behind the barracks bombing.

For the third time:


Archival evidence now shows that Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev decided to withdraw from Afghanistan a year before the mujahideen fired their first Stinger in September 1986
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...inging-rebukes

"Deciding to" means nothing. A timetable for pull out was announced in July 1987.

 

[vodkazvictim]

Yes in 1981 the military defense budget is doubled. The B-1 bomber is put back on track. R&D into the neutron bomb is authorized and work for a 600 ship Navy begins. That's roaring ahead.

Btw the Soviets had strategists who believed a nuclear exchange was winnable.


Oh girk1 the Navy launched airstrikes and ship bombardment against Syrian positions from December '83 to Feb '84. At the time a plan was in the works to hit Hezbollah training facilities but no one was certain Iran was behind the barracks bombing.






"Deciding to" means nothing. A timetable for pull out was announced in July 1987.

That doubling of the military defense budget didn't seem to get much; don't american troops have to buy their own body armour?
Then there's the M1, which I'm sure you know my feelings on.
The B1? I'd rather have a B52 anyday.

 

[Trident1]

That doubling of the military defense budget didn't seem to get much; don't american troops have to buy their own body armour?
Then there's the M1, which I'm sure you know my feelings on.
The B1? I'd rather have a B52 anyday.

It did for the '80s. The M1 and Brit Challenger 1 were superior in quality to anything the Soviets or it's WP allies had.
Since we didn't have massive number of tanks we relied heavily on anti tank weaponry like the A-10, Apache or Cobra gunships, TOW missile, as well as tank ******* devices used by infantry.

The B-1's mission was changed by the AF when Reagan restarted the program. It was to have been used as a long range low level ****** aircraft to penetrate the SU. The B-52 proved and still does that it can do that job as well as carry out conventional strike missions.
The B-1's mission for all purposes ended in 1989 when the Cold War ended but it was kept on for some reason. The B-2 and B-52 can easily do the job.

The Navy today is 1/3 the size it was in 1988/89 as Reagan's 600 ship Navy came close to realization at nearly 590 vessels.

 

[Hot Mega]

Yes in 1981 the military defense budget is doubled.

The defense budget did not double at any point during Reagan's 2 terms. It didn't even double as a percentage of GDP. Your wires got crossed. He doubled the debt. THAT'S what Reagan actually doubled.

The B-1 bomber is put back on track. R&D into the neutron bomb is authorized and work for a 600 ship Navy begins. That's roaring ahead.

Where do you get your facts???? Do you just pull out of thin air whatever sounds nice?? Most felt (including some of our NATO allies) the B-1 was an ENORMOUS waste of money. That ended up being very accurate...Carter era Stealth, B-2 and ALCM made the B-1B nothing more than a huge waste of taxpayer money. The only people who didn't think this was that loon Dornan, Reagan and everyone who worked on the project at RI/Boeing. Wonder what they all had in common? California jobs.

600 ship Navy? A.) How many ships did we get? B.) When did we get them?

Call it what you will but roaring ahead is a bit disjointed considering not one, single piece of machinery stemming from Reagan's policies were operational parts of the military for years subsequent to '81. (operational versus being tested).

Btw the Soviets had strategists who believed a nuclear exchange was winnable.

That's what Reaganites say. I suppose if you wanted to do what Reagan did you would have to convince a number of people this is what the Soviets thought. The only people WE KNOW who saw nuke war as winnable was Reagan and some of his defense policy makers. Certainly without him verbalizing it, his actions still spoke for themselves.

"Deciding to" means nothing. A timetable for pull out was announced in July 1987.

I suppose 'deciding to' = considering. If the Soviets were considering a withdrawal before the first Stinger was ever fired, that still plows a huge gash in the notion that Stingers were the deciding factor.:2 cents:

That doubling of the military defense budget didn't seem to get much; don't american troops have to buy their own body armour?
Then there's the M1, which I'm sure you know my feelings on.
The B1? I'd rather have a B52 anyday.

Because it didn't happen. US defense spending DID NOT double from 1980 to 1981 nor from 1981 to 1982.

Long story short...Reagan ****** allot of money, looked like a fool doing so considering the game was all but over so the narrative is the silly notion that he spent (again, of all things) the Soviets into collapse.

I suppose if a corporation doubled it's debt trying to out-compete it's rival but finds out later the rival was going bankrupt on it's own...how else would you spin it?:spin:

 

[Facetious]

Originally Posted by ragincaucasian
Deregulation is what LEAD to the Deepwater Horizon disaster

:tinhat:

 

[Trident1]

The defense budget did not double at any point during Reagan's 2 terms.

My bad. It was 456.5 billion in 1987 compared to 325.1 billion in 1980. Procurement budget went up to 147.3 billion from 71.2 billion in 1980.
Reagan procured many programs developed under Nixon and Ford.

Where do you get your facts???? Do you just pull out of thin air whatever sounds nice?? Most felt (including some of our NATO allies) the B-1 was an ENORMOUS waste of money. That ended up being very accurate...Carter era Stealth, B-2 and ALCM made the B-1B nothing more than a huge waste of taxpayer money.

Carter era Stealth? The stealth program was Reagan's. Carter was merely informed about "stealth aircraft" possibilities.
The ALCM research began under Ford.
The B-1's mission in the 1980s was penetration of the SU and it's lower radar signature would aid in penetrating SU air defense. So the B-1B wasn't a waste of money for the mission it was to play if war came.

600 ship Navy? A.) How many ships did we get? B.) When did we get them?

591 ships by 1989.

That's what Reaganites say. I suppose if you wanted to do what Reagan did you would have to convince a number of people this is what the Soviets thought. The only people WE KNOW who saw nuke war as winnable was Reagan and some of his defense policy makers. Certainly without him verbalizing it, his actions still spoke for themselves.

If you think for one minute that the Soviet strategists did not think that a nuclear exchange was survivable and winnable then your really fooling yourself.

I suppose 'deciding to' = considering. If the Soviets were considering a withdrawal before the first Stinger was ever fired, that still plows a huge gash in the notion that Stingers were the deciding factor.:2 cents:

The Stingers were a factor. It stopped the Afghan AF from operating and only added to the list of worries for the Soviets. After all if we were willing to give Stingers to the Muja what else were we going to give them in order to win.

Long story short...Reagan ****** allot of money, looked like a fool doing so considering the game was all but over so the narrative is the silly notion that he spent (again, of all things) the Soviets into collapse.

No he wasn't a fool but yes he did spend a lot of money. The 1980s was a unique time when we wanted a strong President who was willing to win the Cold War and do more than just "containing" Communism. It was us vs. them. Unless you lived through it you'll never know the mindset we were all in.
Don't you remember how things were in the 1980s. Didn't you watch "The Day After" in 1983 or "Threads" in 1984? How old were you then?
Stop using hindsight Mega.

 

[emceeemcee]

"Deciding to" means nothing. A timetable for pull out was announced in July 1987.

It only means nothing to the true believers who are desperate to bend the facts to fit their faith about their sugardaddy. But I understand how painful it is when you find out your hero's aren't actually what you thought they were so I fully understand the state of denial you appear to be in.

 

[Trident1]

It only means nothing to the true believers who are desperate to bend the facts to fit their faith about their sugardaddy. But I understand how painful it is when you find out your hero's aren't actually what you thought they were so I fully understand the state of denial you appear to be in.

:tinhat:

 

[Hot Mega]

My bad. It was 456.5 billion in 1987 compared to 325.1 billion in 1980.

Still wrong.
But never mind that, Reagan took office in Jan '81. That means the DoD wasn't operating on a single cent he approved of until at least Oct of '81 for the FY '82 budget.

Procurement budget went up to 147.3 billion from 71.2 billion in 1980.
Reagan procured many programs developed under Nixon and Ford.

Watch this. (You are a worse double-speaker than stat guy.)

Carter era Stealth? The stealth program was Reagan's. Carter was merely informed about "stealth aircraft" possibilities.
The ALCM research began under Ford.
The B-1's mission in the 1980s was penetration of the SU and it's lower radar signature would aid in penetrating SU air defense. So the B-1B wasn't a waste of money for the mission it was to play if war came.

So let's get this double-speak straight (if we can).

The stealth program was Reagan's even though the 'research' began under someone else but ALCM is attributed to Ford and Nixon because the 'research' began under them??

The stealth program was Reagan's??? Tell me (us) how a plane who's first flight was in '81 before Reagan could spend a single cent on defense his? I'll tell you how, it wasn't. The F-117 stealth (fighter in name only) bomber began FSD and was contracted in '78...that's how. The B-2 (ATB) project began in '79. The contract was awarded in '81 to North./Boeing. Carter even announced we were developing the bomber in 1980 for ****** out loud. ACLM's R&D was initially green lit under Nixon but was cancelled and revived multiple times until Carter ordered full scale production in 1980.

Again, with the development of Carter era stealth, ACLM along with the continued reliability of the B-52...the B-1 was a waste in that context. I can only think of a couple of reason Reagan revive it. Politics and ignorance. He ran against Carter on it and GOPer hawks were playing their usual soft on defense card but during that time the stealth projects were super secret in the years preceding the election...So Reagan was free to run around blathering about the B-1 and how weak Carter seemed.

591 ships by 1989.

So 588? Largely achieved by recommissioning decommissioned ships and pushing out the timelines for ships due to be decommissioned.

If you think for one minute that the Soviet strategists did not think that a nuclear exchange was survivable and winnable then your really fooling yourself.

Fooling myself? So we know Reagan and his Reaganauts thought this, you and they theorize the Soviets thought this but no one else with common sense believes this. So who are the fools?

The Stingers were a factor. It stopped the Afghan AF from operating and only added to the list of worries for the Soviets. After all if we were willing to give Stingers to the Muja what else were we going to give them in order to win.

They were being used at some point so we know their use qualifies as a 'factor' in double-speak. The question is whether the **** was out of the ***** already.

No he wasn't a fool but yes he did spend a lot of money. The 1980s was a unique time when we wanted a strong President who was willing to win the Cold War and do more than just "containing" Communism. It was us vs. them. Unless you lived through it you'll never know the mindset we were all in.
Don't you remember how things were in the 1980s. Didn't you watch "The Day After" in 1983 or "Threads" in 1984? How old were you then?
Stop using hindsight Mega.

How old was I? I served in Reagan's military...how about that?

It is generally considered the US and Soviets were closer to all out nuclear war under Reagan for the first time since the Cuban missile standoff.

Do you know what that means really?????? That means, Reagan was handed a game that was already won and the idiot nearly lost it...because that's what could have happened if the Reaganauts had been left to guide this dimwit for his entire presidency and we ended up trying to blow each other to bits.

Hindsight is realizing you ****** a ton of money then trying to put the best spin on it.

No different from the babble GWB revisionists employ re the clusterfuck that was the Iraq war. No WMD? Well 'isn't the world a safer place without Saddam Hussein?' or the GWB 'kept us safe' mantra. GOPers are legendary for their ability to miscalculate and fuck up (allot) then recast it as a strategy that won or accomplished something.

Well, at least Reagan didn't get a bunch of people ****** unnecessarily like Bush did ...though he tried his best.

 

[Trident1]

Still wrong.
But never mind that, Reagan took office in Jan '81. That means the DoD wasn't operating on a single cent he approved of until at least Oct of '81 for the FY '82 budget.

Watch this. (You are a worse double-speaker than stat guy.)


So let's get this double-speak straight (if we can).

The stealth program was Reagan's even though the 'research' began under someone else but ALCM is attributed to Ford and Nixon because the 'research' began under them??

The stealth program was Reagan's??? Tell me (us) how a plane who's first flight was in '81 before Reagan could spend a single cent on defense his? I'll tell you how, it wasn't. The F-117 stealth (fighter in name only) bomber began FSD and was contracted in '78...that's how. The B-2 (ATB) project began in '79. The contract was awarded in '81 to North./Boeing. Carter even announced we were developing the bomber in 1980 for ****** out loud. ACLM's R&D was initially green lit under Nixon but was cancelled and revived multiple times until Carter ordered full scale production in 1980.

Again, with the development of Carter era stealth, ACLM along with the continued reliability of the B-52...the B-1 was a waste in that context. I can only think of a couple of reason Reagan revive it. Politics and ignorance. He ran against Carter on it and GOPer hawks were playing their usual soft on defense card but during that time the stealth projects were super secret in the years preceding the election...So Reagan was free to run around blathering about the B-1 and how weak Carter seemed.



So 588? Largely achieved by recommissioning decommissioned ships and pushing out the timelines for ships due to be decommissioned.


Fooling myself? So we know Reagan and his Reaganauts thought this, you and they theorize the Soviets thought this but no one else with common sense believes this. So who are the fools?


They were being used at some point so we know their use qualifies as a 'factor' in double-speak. The question is whether the **** was out of the ***** already.


How old was I? I served in Reagan's military...how about that?

It is generally considered the US and Soviets were closer to all out nuclear war under Reagan for the first time since the Cuban missile standoff.

Do you know what that means really?????? That means, Reagan was handed a game that was already won and the idiot nearly lost it...because that's what could have happened if the Reaganauts had been left to guide this dimwit for his entire presidency and we ended up trying to blow each other to bits.

Hindsight is realizing you ****** a ton of money then trying to put the best spin on it.

No different from the babble GWB revisionists employ re the clusterfuck that was the Iraq war. No WMD? Well 'isn't the world a safer place without Saddam Hussein?' or the GWB 'kept us safe' mantra. GOPers are legendary for their ability to miscalculate and fuck up (allot) then recast it as a strategy that won or accomplished something.

Well, at least Reagan didn't get a bunch of people ****** unnecessarily like Bush did ...though he tried his best.

"Senior Trend" which was the prototype design for the F-117 didn't fly until June '81. The project was designated a "black project" under Reagan's term.
"Have Blue" under the Carter Admin were failures.
The F-117 reached operational status under Reagan.
The ATB given to Northrop in October '81....Reagan's term.


The USN received 591 vessels whether they were "recommissioned" like the New Jersey doesn't matter the number of vessels was quite close to Reagan's desire for a 600 ship fleet.
I'm not putting spin on any of Reagan's projects. I admitted he spent a lot of money but I gave you the reasons which you ignore.

May I ask which branch and which unit you served in? Where did you serve? When did you serve? 1981-89?

 

[Hot Mega]

"Senior Trend" which was the prototype design for the F-117 didn't fly until June '81. The project was designated a "black project" under Reagan's term.
"Have Blue" under the Carter Admin were failures.
The F-117 reached operational status under Reagan.
The ATB given to Northrop in October '81....Reagan's term.

You're a lost cause. :clap: Take a bow...you are one of a kind.

“From its first flight in 1981 through more than 20 years of operational service that includes deployment in three major conflicts, the stealth capabilities of this black jet have revolutionized air warfare,” said George Zielsdorf, vice president of F-117 and U-2 programs for Lockheed Martin. “Lockheed Martin’s lessons-learned and experience in stealth, associated technologies, and reliability and sustainment have defined the 5TH Generation systems of today.”

Lockheed Martin won the contract to build 59 F-117 fighters at the famed Skunk Works™ in Burbank, Calif., in 1978. The F-117 flew for the first time on June 18, 1981, only 31 months after the contract was awarded. Deliveries began in 1982 and ended in 1990. The aircraft achieved initial operational capability in October 1983, less than 5 years after program go-ahead.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2007/TWENTYFIVEYEARSOFSTEALTHSUSTAINMENT.html

Of course it reached operational status at some point after the contract was awarded. That's how it works. The only thing Reagan is responsible for as it relates to the F-117 and to a slightly more degree B-2 is he didn't stop the programs. They were projects undertaken (not merely tech researched) under Carter. They were just so secret that Carter couldn't run around babbling about it. What way could Reagan take responsibility for something that was being flight tested before he became president?? In Try-dent world that's where.

I know you'll somehow still manufacture a reality in your mind labeling this something to do with Reagan beyond him presiding over it after the fact (like nearly everything else associated with his presidency). But knock yourself out Try-dent.

May I ask which branch and which unit you served in? Where did you serve? When did you serve? 1981-89?

You may ask but all you need to know is Reagan was the President and Carlucci was the Secy. of Defense at the time.

 

[Hot Mega]

^^^LM says they won a contract to build 59 of them in 1978. Who would have been the president approving the contract in 1978?

 

[Trident1]

You're a lost cause. :clap: Take a bow...you are one of a kind.



http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2007/TWENTYFIVEYEARSOFSTEALTHSUSTAINMENT.html

Of course it reached operational status at some point after the contract was awarded. That's how it works. The only thing Reagan is responsible for as it relates to the F-117 and to a slightly more degree B-2 is he didn't stop the programs. They were projects undertaken (not merely tech researched) under Carter. They were just so secret that Carter couldn't run around babbling about it. What way could Reagan take responsibility for something that was being flight tested before he became president?? In Try-dent world that's where.

I know you'll somehow still manufacture a reality in your mind labeling this something to do with Reagan beyond him presiding over it after the fact (like nearly everything else associated with his presidency). But knock yourself out Try-dent.



You may ask but all you need to know is Reagan was the President and Carlucci was the Secy. of Defense at the time.

The "project" began in '75 under the name "Hopeless Diamond". As for the F-117A and B-2 Reagan kept both programs alive, and awarded contracts.
Carter blabbed about the stealth program after his disastrous raid at Desert One. He felt compelled to say something positive after that rescue debacle.

I'm not "manufacturing" anything Mega. I'm stating facts. The facts stand that Reagan funded these projects awarded the projects to companies, made them a reality so that the Soviets had to worry about dealing with them.

Interestingly enough Carter who cancelled the B-1 got rid of an aircraft that actually had "stealth" characteristics.
Because of it's design it's radar signature is 1/50 of the B-52s. As you know Reagan resurrected the aircraft.

So you served in the US Armed ****** during the '80s. You won't say which branch, where you were stationed, or your former rank for some reason. Hmmmm.:dunno:

 

[Hot Mega]

The "project" began in '75 under the name "Hopeless Diamond". As for the F-117A and B-2 Reagan kept both programs alive, and awarded contracts.

What is the purpose of the above statement but for more double-speak mumbo jumbo? LM is a company which sells products to among other customers, the g'ment. Who cares when they started the process to research and develop another product they could market?? What matters in terms of g'ment policy is when a president decides to put them under contract to produce the product for the g'ment. That happened in '78.

'Hopeless Diamond' had nothing to do with the destiny of the project pre-Reagan as you seem to be implying. It had to do with a play on the Hope Diamond because of the aircraft's color, the shape of the design and it's then uniqueness.

Carter blabbed about the stealth program after his disastrous raid at Desert One. He felt compelled to say something positive after that rescue debacle.

I'm sure Carter told you that's what his thinking was. Whatever or whenever he said what he said in respect to the operation in Iran is how you're characterizing it. Point of fact, he stated a truth of the projects which up til then was considered closely guarded information.

I'm not "manufacturing" anything Mega. I'm stating facts. The facts stand that Reagan funded these projects awarded the projects to companies, made them a reality so that the Soviets had to worry about dealing with them.

You're engaging in double-speak using conveniently parsed words and characterizations of facts to lead people who don't know any better to believe myths.

All you're doing is trying to play 3 card monty with the facts in hopes some will gloss over reading what you're actually saying.

Interestingly enough Carter who cancelled the B-1 got rid of an aircraft that actually had "stealth" characteristics.
Because of it's design it's radar signature is 1/50 of the B-52s. As you know Reagan resurrected the aircraft.

History shows Carter cancelled the B-1 stealth bomber because as I stated before, Carter 1.) Green lit FSD of ALCMs which could be delivered by B-52s. 2.) He was moving forward with the F-117 and the B-2 stealth bombers. 3.) Circumstances 1 and 2 made meant the additional and excessive cost of the B-1 far outweighed the benefit.

So you served in the US Armed ****** during the '80s. You won't say which branch, where you were stationed, or your former rank for some reason. Hmmmm.:dunno:

You don't need to know and it's irrelevant to the point. You were probably of the assumption I wasn't of age..when in fact I was actually in the military during Reagan's presidency. End of story. What difference to you or the point would the facts of my service demonstrate even if I were inclined to prove it?? You don't believe me? So.:dunno:

 

[Baill Inneraora]