Pentagon will send more than 50 F-35s to Europe to deter Russia

Forces all around the world to secure your influence and rescources.

 

Wrong.

1) It would be years before all 100 F-35s were built and delivered to Germany. Trump would be out of office by then anyway.
2) How would any U.S. president go about "deactivating a fleet" of fighters that it no longer even has possession of?
3) You have not answered my question regarding your obsession about fighters having two engines?

 

True but it wasn't only F-35s the U.S. used.

 

Tomorrow is election in my stateThüringen. Im gonna vot far right AfD.

 

A strong United States benefits its allies as well. That includes Germany.

 

"far right" in Germany probably equals "slightly right of center" in the United States.

 

Give me the Trump quote that you are referencing.

If you don't want dependency, don't accept hand outs.

If Germany doesn't want to be part of the mutual defense agreement they should withdraw.

How exactly is Trump going to "deactivate" the German Air-force? If you buy the planes, you own them. Using your own produced planes absolutely has the advantage of also giving you control of the parts resupply. If you can, I would think that you are better off producing your own world class fighters. What would be unfortunate would be if you didn't commit to either option and instead had a strategy that fell between the bar-stools.

 

1. The aircrafts would needed to be build here. You dont think we would order 100 fighter jets without participation for our own workers and tech transfer? Right now, USA becomes more and more a hostile country for us.
2. Software. You can easily render a aircraft useless in that regard. USA denies Germany acess to the software, which was a contributing factor to denie the deal.
3. One engien fails, jet is doomed. One engine also means less power output, slower acceleration

 

Dont know. AfD want end the holocaust folklore. mass deport illegal migrants, cut down benefits for non german to zero.

 

An Argument consists of 2 things 1) Statement of claim or premise 2) reasons why that claim should be accepted as true.

This is the second time I have said this and the second time you have failed (in the last two posts)

1) state what claim you think has been debunked 2) give reasons or show evidence that prove claim or show why that claim is true.

Your claim is 1) "You Misrepresent Stealth technology"

If you are going to claim I misrepresented Stealth technology - you have to state how in order for that claim to be meaningful. This is like saying "you misrepresented the news" - without stating what on earth is meant.

Where is your proof or rational for this claim ?

You say:
Stealth means low observable that means it takes enemies longer to detect it's presence and makes it difficult to impossible to direct defenses.

I agree in part with the above. - but you have not stated what I have misrepresented in the above .. you have not backed up your "misrepresentation - what did I misrepresent ? "

Your next statement relates to the topic - and to a question I have already raised - asking where on the spectrum are we - fully invisible being on one end ... detected and targetable being the other.

So you commit another fallacy by inferring that I have not brought this up - and misrepresented it. How is asking you to quantify where on the spectrum we are - "Misrepresenting something" ?

Enemies take longer to detect "True" .. how much longer and what are the current capabilities. This is a nothing statement without this added quantification.

Makes it difficult to impossible to direct defenses - more difficult - for sure - impossible being at the far end of the spectrum.

Impossible for who ? Nigeria ? China? India ? - Nigeria perhaps .. but not China/India.

So what means more difficult ? What are the capabilities on the other side or on our side. This is a vague naked claim that is meaningless due to lack of quantification - even if it wasn't naked.

Painful



.

 

I don't think we used F-35's in Syria .. The Israeli's did though - thought they were attributed as with first use in the region.

Either way - this group did not have much in the way of air defenses

 

Feeling the need for some "elbow room"?

 

1: https://www.politico.eu/article/don...release-isis-fighters-if-eu-doesnt-take-them/

That moron threatend to release ISIS on Europe.

2. Our energy projects are our internal matter. Im sure you would not like us to interfer in your internal matters as well? American LNG costs 30% more than gas delivered from russia. You are free to compete on the german market. But dont expect a hard working german family father to pay 30% more to keep the family house warm at winter.

3. We develop our own jet. Until its ready we need a replacement for the old tornado aircrafts. How Trump could deactive german F-35? Through the software.

 

No, just dont want pay taxes to pay living cost for 3rd world scum.

 

More than likely, it was only one F-35 that took them out. /sarc

They were armed to the teeth. Of course they had air defenses.

 

You wouldn't be a happy camper living in California.

And to make it worse, the third world scum are a protected class in California.

 

it's all in the videos. if you don't want to watch them and learn that's on you...

 

I've been there and seen the "immigrants" from Turkey and Africa hanging out downtown Frankfurt. I truly don't blame you. But the holocaust is another story.

You aren't done wearing that cross yet.

 

huh i don't want to pay taxes to protect European first world scum

 

Oh im not done? I have news for you, im 27 years old. I have nothing to do with Holocaust. My parents have nothing to do with Holocaust. Even my grandparents have nothing to do about Holocaust.

Im not just done with it. I give a **** about it. Hope that helps ypu to understand clearer. If not i can tell you some great Holocaust jokes we shared at the school yard.

 

Trump is full of swamp gas.. Russia and Syria came to an agreement about Syrian oil and gas last year.

 

That is a good post.

I thoroughly agree that it is fair to describe al Qaeda as "Islamist jihadist anarchist."

I further agree that the election of Donald Trump--which the terrorists never anticipated--entirely changed things.

But since al Qaeda is not a nation-state, NATO's rules--e.g. an attack upon one is an attack upon all--simply do not apply.

 

You dont, you just protect your interests.

 

AQ has gained and held territory in South Yemen.