1) F-35 and F-22 are wastes of money.
I'd rate this mostly valid. The way those programs turned out in terms of waste is definitely a problem, however being able to decisively have air superiority is a need. While a Russian or Chinese war will not happen, proxy wars will, and we need to be sure that our fighters can dominate or at least compete. The generation prior to F22/F35 don't. Supporting a next-gen fighter is a good thing, supporting a political boondoggle is not.
2) Our current enemies don't have fighters that can best our current fighters.
I'd rate this invalid. We don't know who our next adversary will be, nor do we know from where they will equip. We need to be able to beat anything a country other than us can produce to be able to ensure the ability to take air superiority as a given
3) We have too many carriers (adversaries have a couple and bad ones at that)
I'd rate this invalid. The carriers are less about tactical ability and need and much more about projecting power and influence. Sending a carrier strike group to the persian gulf or near north korea, enables the secretary of state to put muscle behind words, and that is well worth the cost, boondoggle or not.
4) War between nuclear weaponized countries is mutual suicide.
Yup. And so long as one side is not feeling suicidal, it won't happen. And (hopefully) if it does, it won't involve nukes.
5) Our current military is acting like the cold war is still ongoing.
Somewhat. Petraeus and associates started a paradigm shift about how we approach combat, this has not yet truly taken hold in terms of acquisitions, so in some sense, we are still buying weapons for wars we will never fight, but it is changing. Look at efforts towards littoral combat and multi-purpose ships.
6) Cut our Navy in half and spam enemies off the field.
Nope. This works for _current_ enemies and _current_ technology, and even then, not so much (see USS Cole, or your example of being spammed by sea skimmer missiles). The Navy needs to be smarter and maybe that means fewer ships, but it certainly does not mean cutting it in half just because we can.
7) The military contractor situation is a bloated mess and needs a good housecleaning.
8) We need to stop wasting money on boondoggles like we are.
Yes, absolutely correct, but the devil is in how to figure out what those are _before_ they get funded.
Of course, a primary difference is, one deliberately starts a campfire.
One also deliberately fires a gun.
There, as with firearms, there was no intent to start a fire in the first place.
There was no intent with the campfire to start a wildfire. In both cases, a deliberate and irresponsible act (that is safe in normal wetter conditions) starts an unintended wildfire.
A better comparison would be to wildfires caused by vehicles (hot exhaust parked over dry grass, no spark arrestor, etc.)?
This is a fair comparison only if the driver of the vehicle was intentionally driving around without a spark arrestor or other deliberate *and* irresponsible act. As an example, a police officer who starts a wildfire while shooting his weapon in the course of his duties would be the fairer comparison to your accidental car exhaust fire (although if the grass was that susceptible, I would expect public wilderness areas to be closed to vehicular traffic).
"It's ten o'clock... Do you know where your AI programs are?" -- Peter Oakley