---DA---And only a troll inserts strawman arguments---I have not used a single logical fallacy here and I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise.

 ---DA---and then derails a thread on issues not directly related to the topic.---Everything I have mentioned here has been directly or indirectly related to your topic. I even cut and pasted from your FIRST POST and put the important parts in high lighter just so you can see how they are related.

Instead of actually reading and comprehending what I wrote, it appears to me you would rather attack me (notice I have not attacked you, the novice comment was a warning NOT directed at you but just a general statement or warning) and yet here you are dismissing what I have said and labeling me a troll.

Why is this?

---DA---What the USAF CoS says he want's and how or if Congress will fund it are separate topics.---They can be separate topics or they can be the SAME topic. Why? Because the two are intimately related.

Demonstrate otherwise if you can because I have already demonstrated how the two are inexorably linked.

---DA---In BLUE :quod erat demonstratum: EGO sum nunquam nefas quoniam EGO sum Caesar! Herald ---

Your translation is off Darth; I suppose the online translator did not serve you as well as you assumed. That is a poor attempt at mockery; some may see Herald as arrogant (I do not see it) but as a God figure (Caesar)? Too far.

---DA---Herald, EF and BEAZZZ. I'm not here to get into personal conflicts. I seriously want to debate others who are interested in the threads I start.---

Really? Then perhaps you will address some of my points that you have conveniently ignored.

Here I will restate the most important ones:

Seeing as Congress had dug a hole so deep they could send a runner to China for more tea financially, and have already cut from the DOD and have a history of cutting defense projects when the money dries up, and seeing as the F-35 has not been purchased, YET, how can you claim that hundreds of F-35s that DO NOT EXIST and have NOT YET BEEN PURCHASED can act as a cushion for the cut in F-22s?

What I wrote in my previous post:

Instead of actually reading and comprehending what I wrote, it appears to me you would rather attack me (notice I have not attacked you, the novice comment was a warning NOT directed at you but just a general statement or warning) and yet here you are dismissing what I have said and labeling me a troll.

Why is this?

---Da---I get your point that funds need to made available. Nobody is disputing that. My point is simply WHICH programs the the USAF CoS thinks the should get funding.---That is great and we can discuss that but my point is that you were using the F-35 acquisition as further evidence that we did not need more F-22s.

I was pointing out that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

---Da---Also, I didn't do any translation. I think it's Herald who posted that.---Well my mistake. This forum format goes the hell and gone when people start posting things and the format confuses the hell out of me; the eye does not help.

---Da--- I didn't even respond to that. Finally, the F-35's that the USAF are planning to fund, WILL provide the cushion for the early retirement of legacy fighters and decision not to purchase the 60 additional F-22's.---

IF THEY AER PURCHASED! IF. IF. IF. That is my point.

You cannot use them in this debate because we have not paid for them and there is a chance, however unlikely, that we will at least cut the order down.

 ---Da---The USAF CoS has stated that we can take the risk now of a decrease in the fighter force in order to redirect funds toward the F-35 and other programs that are coming next decade.---And what happens if we cut the F-35 order substantially and then other nations cut their orders and the price goes through the roof further forcing us to cut our order even more?

That is a POSSIBILIBITY so please tell me what we are going to do if that happens?

---Da---The logical fallacy was that your post suggested that since the entire multi year procurement of F-35s have not been funded in FY2010, that it is unlikely that they will be. ---That is not a logical fallacy; that is a fact: if we have not bought it, we MAY NOT BUY IT in the future.

History supports this.

How many F-22s did the we originally want to buy?

How many B-2s did we originally want to buy?

---Da---This is not representative of the way multi year procurement programs work where they are funded over time rather than all at once.---How many programs have started out with us wanting X and then after 4 - 10 years and BILLIONS in cost over runs we decide that we can live with X - Y unites to save costs?

I can think of several programs in which this has occurred.

Are you telling me that this is not possible with the F-35?

---Da---All of these issues have been made clear. Your points and mine are clearly laid out in enough detail that people understand what we mean. So lets move forward and not play semantics with each other.--This is not an issue of semantics but of practicality: the Congress is OUT OF MONEY and we have not yet paid for F-35s.

The Congress is publicly floating VAT, national sales tax, Cap and Trade. These ideas were once considered to be third rail: mention them and you career goes bye-bye. So this should scare the piss out of you because if they are mentioning this they are strapped for cash big time.

History tells me there is one Executive agency that is the holy-cash-cow of budget cuts when the **** fairy pays a visit and that is the Department of Defense.

So now we are cutting our order of F-22s predicated on the ASSUMPTION that we will get many or most of the orders of F-35s that we want and I am telling you there is a possibility that we will be slashing the F-35 big time in the next coming years.

What do we do if that happens?