So the Buccaneer, Yak-28 & F-105 were 5th generation? :confused:

I don’t think this correction will keep him from lavishly garnishing his posts with words like ‘clearly’ and ‘obviously’.

I have to give it to Scooter when we for once see things similar:

quote =Scooter :Further, Spain does not plan on building a Carrier large enough to operate CTOL Aircraft……The point is moot!

I hope you are aware then that according to Merriam-Webster, the primary meaning of ‘moot’ is: ‘a: open to question : debatable b: subjected to discussion : disputed’.

So, if it doesn’t make sense to discuss a naval Typhoon for Spain, because Spain ‘clearly’ wouldn’t go that route, then it’s not moot.

By the way: What was the specified thrust requirement for the F135 as installed in the F-35?

That’s what I call a real proof. 🙂
Here another animation of roughlky the same value..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t672XRKLH4w

LOL! Yup, that’s proof too. :p

I remember that kind of proof. Seems to have quite some weight with a certain kind of people. Remember this ‘proof’ for example?

It’s proof I tells ya! 😮 :p

There are no universally accepted ethical standards. One only needs to have a minimal understanding of various cultures to see this. I have my ethical views and you have yours: neither my views nor yours are better or more correct.
And you still come to judge people you barely understand.

I’d have problems letting moral relativism run rampant. Although I guess you just didn’t express it explicitly here, while we probably do share a stance on that. 🙂

What I’m in favour of is a pragmatical awareness of morality’s and ethics’ relativist nature as far as strategies and solutions are concerned, while maintaining some humanist ideals as goals. Very much in a “Yes, the people are different, have a different culture and a different upbringing, which we need all to take into account when dealing with them, but we should still push for equality, liberty, freedom, dignity and fraternity to prevail” sense.

I have no trouble conceding the fact that morals are relativist, but I’m not going to budge on certain humanist ideals (like the ones I mentioned) as being superior and what every society should strive for. I have little patience for any ideology that tries to justify a disparity between men and women, that punishes freedom of thought and expression, or tries to punitively regulate any consensual interactions between people for example.

But then again I don’t think that something like that can be forced upon other people. All that is left, in my opinion, is to lead by example and try to be the most mature, tolerant, peaceful and respectful person and society one can be. I think leading by example is the only way good behaviour can genuinely spread and take hold. 🙂

In short the vast majority believed Saddam had WMD.

Yes, and that is why a vast majority followed you into….

Oh. Wait.

The German Speaker of the Ministry of Defense, Thomas Raabe, turned against the recent report and said that Germany needs the A400M and does not plan on cancelling the deal. They are anticipating long delays, but care more about the production schedule than first flight/testing schedule.

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/564/460199/text/

So, neither France nor Germany are quitting. What they are going to do about the contractual penalties to Airbus remains to be seen.

The original article at http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/1230627.html has a reader comment that doesn’t paint Mr. England’s professional history the same way he does it himself.

Like sferrin’s post showed, there might be inaccuracies in England’s report of his own actions.

GB wrote on 3/1/2009 8:56:14 AM:

Its unfortunate that you did not check-out Mr England’s myths vs the actual facts:
1) “183 Raptor myth” England ordered one last hasty study to justify 183 Raptors with no campaign-based, classified analysis. 29 other studies had that and all 29 said we need more than 220-280 F-22s, including his WBB “mother of all studies” that said we need 260.
2) “I saved the F-22 by doing the MYP” This was completely initiated by the AF not by OSD. OSD tried to kill the F-22 by 2008 with PBD 753 (it had no MYP).
3) “Continued F-22 will hurt F-35 myth” A wholsale invention of the England/Cambone/Young crowd to gather political top-cover in TX–but the TX delegation saw thru the Bull. The AF had already paid for F-22s in the FYDP thru 2013 when Mr England came into OSD from the Navy where he heard the F-22 was tearing up competition in air ex’s. OSD took that F-22 money, and took all AF offsets to pay for more (2nd time). OSD alone invented the F-35 vs F-22 farcical showdown.

Can anyone comment on the issues raised?