You’re talking out of your ass. If you ask a Marine what they’d prefer supporting them in the air, they’ll tell you they want a Marine. USMC doesn’t fly A-10, doesn’t want to fly A-10, so it falls into the category of “I’ll take it if it’s available” just like the F-16, B-1 and F-15.

You’re losing it. This particular sentence is exceptionally poorly researched:

Yes...but the formality of performance reviews, and the implicit assumption that once you’re given a raise you’re not going to slack off implies respect for you as a professional and a person.

The support is in the link. Did you only read the 1 word you liked? Flyaway cost is $65.3 (33.2 + 9.6 + 9.3 + 13.2 non-itemized components and services) and support is $15.4 million, which is 19% of the total cost.

You apparently didn’t read much either. The full-on cost is the same: $80.7 million. My oversight (which, yeah, my bad) is immaterial, the “other” category is apparently bigger by 9 million and the engines are 9 less. And no, “support” is not recurring costs. That’s what you need to buy upfront to use the aircraft.…

??? You people make no damn sense. Canada thinks a $115 F-35A is too expensive, so you think they should go for a $210 million (inflation adjusted all-in cost, not including R&D or cost to restart production) F-22?

Given that Trudeau also ran on improving US-Canadian relations, I highly doubt they drop the F-35 for a European combat jet (which has never happened, so would be a particularly strong statement). I see 3 outcomes:

Absolutely, which is why it’s mostly off Congress’s shit list (McCain still cranks on it), but Taylor has an axe to grind, so the only thing you’ll get from him is the occasionally pretty photo.

Umm...no. One-time costs for a Super Hornet is $80.7 million. $33.29 million for the airframe. $9.3 million for avionics, and 9.6 million for EACH of the F414 engines and $19 million in spares and other support costs.

You are a redneck. There will be no high society for you. Never.

Actually, a big part of it was the Washington Naval Treaty, as well as WW2 as you mentioned. Most obsolete battleships, and all dreadnoughts, had to be scrapped upon replacement. So any ship surviving WW1 (not many outside of US, UK and Japan) would likely be scrapped in order to preserve a more modern hull.

That’s assigned sorties. Missions numbers are a bit different, but tell the same story: CAS has been taken over by fast jets and drones. Multirole, bombers and drones account for over 79% of sorties and more than 72% of missions. And that’s not counting the AV-8 as multirole (it can be used that way, but generally…

No, you don’t fucking get it because you don’t understand your singular opinion means exactly dick.

I feel like I’m repeating myself. How is this not clear to you ?

You seem pretty dense. You could be BUILDING these things (or at least claim to, like I said and you failed to grasp, people say lots of shit on the internet to suggest they are an authority on something and thus immune from criticism), and your claims will remain anecdotal evidence, which isn’t proof.

No...antiabortionists kind of revel in that kind of imagry.

The endgame was taking the chemical weapons off the table. Mission accomplished without a shot fired. This is just the postseason exhibition game where there’s no stakes, only pride, on the line. For America, I mean. The Syrians...well...they’re dying by the thousands and fleeing by the millions.

1) Too bad, because it is an anecdote.

Anecdotes do not make a fallacy valid.

First half of your question is valid, but my interest in sharing sources nosedived the moment you threw the genetic fallacy at me. I’m not wasting my time wrestling with Kinja just to have it handwaved by the intellectually lazy.