jetcareers - View Single Post - KC-330 AKA Airbus Tanker

MikeD · December 1st, 2004, 01:26

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's the same BS argument, aloft, that people use to keep unneeded military bases open just to maintain jobs at the base, and the local town. Local towns shouldn't depend on a base for their economy, and bases shouldn't be used as an economic engine. They're there for national defense, and if they have no mission anymore and are not needed, then they're gone; since all they're doing is porking away money with their existance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great...so bankrupt Boeing, bankrupt the communities around all those unnecessary bases. What then, exactly, is the military left to defend? Hint: it ain't turf.

We're rapidly on our way toward being a highly polarized society: people who can barely afford to shop at WalMart, and people who wouldn't be caught dead shopping there. Is that what you swore to defend? Refresh my memory: what does Article 1 of the Code of Conduct have to say on the matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bankrupt Boeing? Are you serious? If Boeing goes bankrupt, it's no one's fault BUT THEY'RE OWN. THEY are the ones that manage their own future.

Are you telling we should buy an inferior product simply because it's "made in the USA"?

Are you telling me that unneeded bases and excess infrastructure should be kept open just to keep jobs going? At what cost? Equipment readiness? Because that's exactly what's going on right now. There are SO many pork bases eating up our cash out there that we need BRAC more than ever.

A community that has a base nearby should damn well plan it's financial future without the base taken into account. The bse is merely icing on the cake. Again, the base is there for national defense, it does NOT exist to provide jobs for the local economy....that's merely a fringe benefit. The mission of DOD is not to provide employment to small town-USA that fails to plan for it's own future. Show me where it's a decree of the DOD to be a welfare provider, via jobs, contracts, or otherwise.

A good town plans it's future. Victorville, California was so afraid of George AFB closing in 1992, yet is doing far better today than it ever was when the base was there. Why? Because they marketed Southern California International Airport and utilized it in their business plan.

Aloft, you sound like one of the pork-barrel Senators from the hill. "I support base closings......just not in my district."

Frankly, Aloft, as someone that uses military equipmenton a daily basis, I'm tired of not having parts and of planes that barely hold together because the money needed for them is tied up in pork barrel projects like 767 con-job lease deals (read: Boeing corporate welfare and kickbacks) and unneeded military infrastructure kept around just so Del Rio, Texas can have people working.

December 1st, 2004, 01:26	#14
MikeD Administrator Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Pinal Airpark Posts: 6,897	Re: KC-330 AKA Airbus Tanker [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It's the same BS argument, aloft, that people use to keep unneeded military bases open just to maintain jobs at the base, and the local town. Local towns shouldn't depend on a base for their economy, and bases shouldn't be used as an economic engine. They're there for national defense, and if they have no mission anymore and are not needed, then they're gone; since all they're doing is porking away money with their existance. [/ QUOTE ] Great...so bankrupt Boeing, bankrupt the communities around all those unnecessary bases. What then, exactly, is the military left to defend? Hint: it ain't turf. We're rapidly on our way toward being a highly polarized society: people who can barely afford to shop at WalMart, and people who wouldn't be caught dead shopping there. Is that what you swore to defend? Refresh my memory: what does Article 1 of the Code of Conduct have to say on the matter? [/ QUOTE ] Bankrupt Boeing? Are you serious? If Boeing goes bankrupt, it's no one's fault BUT THEY'RE OWN. THEY are the ones that manage their own future. Are you telling we should buy an inferior product simply because it's "made in the USA"? Are you telling me that unneeded bases and excess infrastructure should be kept open just to keep jobs going? At what cost? Equipment readiness? Because that's exactly what's going on right now. There are SO many pork bases eating up our cash out there that we need BRAC more than ever. A community that has a base nearby should damn well plan it's financial future without the base taken into account. The bse is merely icing on the cake. Again, the base is there for national defense, it does NOT exist to provide jobs for the local economy....that's merely a fringe benefit. The mission of DOD is not to provide employment to small town-USA that fails to plan for it's own future. Show me where it's a decree of the DOD to be a welfare provider, via jobs, contracts, or otherwise. A good town plans it's future. Victorville, California was so afraid of George AFB closing in 1992, yet is doing far better today than it ever was when the base was there. Why? Because they marketed Southern California International Airport and utilized it in their business plan. Aloft, you sound like one of the pork-barrel Senators from the hill. "I support base closings......just not in my district." Frankly, Aloft, as someone that uses military equipmenton a daily basis, I'm tired of not having parts and of planes that barely hold together because the money needed for them is tied up in pork barrel projects like 767 con-job lease deals (read: Boeing corporate welfare and kickbacks) and unneeded military infrastructure kept around just so Del Rio, Texas can have people working.