[bumby]

It’s odd that you would find the same type of constraints, such as limiting the evaluation to the single dimension of close air support, to support your view while saying the same constraints are unreasonable in your next response.

I would like you to consider that we likely don’t disagree. I never said that money should be spent on the military or even by the government for that matter. The fact that was how you interpreted that comment before going on that long and apparently pre-chambered rant might be a good reason to give one some pause about your worldview.

[jessaustin]

I only offered CAS as a sop to the arcane MIC theology seen in this thread. All this prattle about per-unit basis, "Reformers", airframes, base rates, when the Pentagon can't even be audited. I don't particularly care about CAS; we shouldn't be there in the first place.

Either you agree, or you don't. If I can't figure it out, I can't care about it.

[bumby]

You brought up the A10 and the POGO's report to support your point. All my replies have literally been responses to the evidence you've provided for your position, so it's odd that you now think those points are irrelevant.

We probably have the same qualms with the MIC. I just don't think the evidence you use to support your claim is particularly valid, and tends to point towards ignorance on the subject. Combined with the circular logic presented and an inability to state what it would take to change your mind, it makes your position more dogmatic than rational. It’s not just a binary “we agree or don’t”, but the thought process that led it because that’s what will ultimately make me rethink my position. My issue isn't the conclusion, it's the way you came to it.