One of many

[CSM]

So it begins. Don't worry, we have been assured we won't lose any capability. If you believe that, then you should send Obama all your bills; he will pay them for you.

Pentagon ending Air Force’s Global Hawk program
By WASHINGTON — Officials say Pentagon budget cuts will end the Air Force’s long-range surveillance drone known as the Global Hawk, but keep the Navy’s version of the unmanned aircraft.


http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2012/01/ap-pentagon-ending-air-forces-global-hawk-program-012412/

[ConHog]

If I were in charge , I would eliminate the Air Force altogether and fold the Marines back into the Navy where they belong. Believe dat.

[CSM]

If I were in charge , I would eliminate the Air Force altogether and fold the Marines back into the Navy where they belong. Believe dat.

Hmmm, might not be a bad idea. The Navy and Marines have airplanes anyway and those Air Force bubbas are bunch of pansies.

[ConHog]

Hmmm, might not be a bad idea. The Navy and Marines have airplanes anyway and those Air Force bubbas are bunch of pansies.

I got no problem with the air force other than it's an unnecessary branch of the military. There is NOWHERE that the Navy can't reach out and touch anywhere in the world. Land based airfields are completely unneeded since our air craft carriers can strike anywhere in the world.

But most importantly, it's one less bureaucracy that needs funding every year. Stupid that the Air Force is fighting with the Navy for aircraft funding every year.

Navy can do every mission the Air Force can do, but the reverse isn't true, so cut the redundant agency.

Of course this isn't the ONLY area of government where this could be applied either.

[Gunny]

If I were in charge , I would eliminate the Air Force altogether and fold the Marines back into the Navy where they belong. Believe dat.

The Marine Corps is a department of the Navy and we're damed proud of it. You got a point?

[ConHog]

The Marine Corps is a department of the Navy and we're damed proud of it. You got a point?

Oh here goes Gunny again getting all defensive over something there is no need to get defensive about. Yes of course the Marines are a department of the Navy, but they have grown their entire own bureaucracy as well, one that is entirely unneeded.

NO ONE is suggesting do away with the Marines.

[cadet]

If I were in charge , I would eliminate the Air Force altogether and fold the Marines back into the Navy where they belong. Believe dat.

Speaking as someone who's working his ass off to get in the air force, FUCK YOU!!!! I'M GONNA BOMB THEM BITCHES WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!!!!:salute:

[ConHog]

Speaking as someone who's working his ass off to get in the air force, FUCK YOU!!!! I'M GONNA BOMB THEM BITCHES WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!!!!:salute:

The point is you could bomb them as a Naval aviator and the defense dep't. would save millions.

[cadet]

The point is you could bomb them as a Naval aviator and the defense dep't. would save millions.

yeah... but then i'd have to WORK. :bs1:

[pegwinn]

Oh here goes Gunny again getting all defensive over something there is no need to get defensive about. Yes of course the Marines are a department of the Navy, but they have grown their entire own bureaucracy as well, one that is entirely unneeded.

NO ONE is suggesting do away with the Marines.

The Mens Department to be exact.

As to doing away with the Air Force..... you are mistaken.

The Navy has no strategic bombing abilities. Local air superiority is great but B52's, or the B1 and B2's can't takeoff from a carrier.

[Gunny]

Oh here goes Gunny again getting all defensive over something there is no need to get defensive about. Yes of course the Marines are a department of the Navy, but they have grown their entire own bureaucracy as well, one that is entirely unneeded.

NO ONE is suggesting do away with the Marines.

AKA: I don't know what I'm talking about.

The mission of the USAF and the mission of USMC air are two VERY different things. The primary purpose of USAF is to provide world-wide strategic bombing. The primary purpose of Navy/Marine Air is air ground support. Two difernt worlds.

I'll take CAS from Marine or Navy pilots EVERY day before I'll take USAF ground support. They don't know how to do it. A Marine will drop shit so close to you that you can feel the heat. The USAF does it from 30k feet.

When I call in air support, I want to see Supercobras that'll light your ass up. Same goes for Army. I'd rather see 4 Blackhawks providing cover than some zoomies 30k ft over head. It's not their job and they don't know how to do it.

On the other hand, the USAF has a mission and it knows its shit.

[ConHog]

The Mens Department to be exact.

As to doing away with the Air Force..... you are mistaken.

The Navy has no strategic bombing abilities. Local air superiority is great but B52's, or the B1 and B2's can't takeoff from a carrier.

So you transfer a few bombing divisions to the Navy and do away with the entire separate command structure.

[Gaffer]

So you transfer a few bombing divisions to the Navy and do away with the entire separate command structure.

What about AWAC's, air refueling, missile command, interceptor squadrons, air traffic control, early warning systems like NORAD? Just to name a few.

Combining the Air Force with the other services would be a logistical nightmare.

[ConHog]

What about AWAC's, air refueling, missile command, interceptor squadrons, air traffic control, early warning systems like NORAD? Just to name a few.

Combining the Air Force with the other services would be a logistical nightmare.

awacs? Navy

air refueling? I'd surely consider that to be bomber support. navy. Or of course just dump Strategic bombers altogether for a savings of billions.

Interceptor? Navy

Missile Command? Norad? Get real, scrap them as the antiquities they are.

air traffic control? I suppose you'll need a few at ground based naval stations, and of course at Army bases.


Could the elimination of the Air Force be done over night without losing a lot of capability? Of course not. But it could be done over time without any real loss of abilities. Wouldn't even really be any loss of man power, other than at the top and those who didn't want to transfer to other branches or agencies.

[cadet]

I'd like to point out that we do alot more.

not only are we the smartest, we do more then just air.

"To fly fight and win, in air, space, and cyberspace"

so, yeah, we're in space too, and just an fyi, we have people continually fighting off viruses from other countries. it may not seem like much, but there's a hell of alot of people that want to steal cash/corrupt everything.

[ConHog]

I'd like to point out that we do alot more.

not only are we the smartest, we do more then just air.

"To fly fight and win, in air, space, and cyberspace"

so, yeah, we're in space too, and just an fyi, we have people continually fighting off viruses from other countries. it may not seem like much, but there's a hell of alot of people that want to steal cash/corrupt everything.

Oh yes, NASA. Dump it.

smartest? I doubt that youngster, I've known men and women from every branch Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, National Guard, Marines. and the absolute truth is that none are smarter than any other. Of course some of the brainy guys in the Air Force are smart, but NO ONE is smarter than some of those nuke guys in the Navy, just for an example.

[cadet]

i didn't say there wasn't smart people in other branches.
heck, my teacher is former marines, but even he said "some of those guys don't know which side of the rock is wet." (his words, not mine)
But, air force definitely has the highest amount of brains.

[ConHog]

i didn't say there wasn't smart people in other branches.
heck, my teacher is former marines, but even he said "some of those guys don't know which side of the rock is wet." (his words, not mine)
But, air force definitely has the highest amount of brains.

That's a stereotype about Marines. They have upped their standards considerably and they are on par with the other branches. I don't think there is a substantive difference at all among all the branches.

[CSM]

Seriously, each branch does have a role in our national defense strategy. The question is one of balancing each branch's capabilities to meet current and future threats. This country cannot protect itself using special operations forces alone not could it defend itself with only air power. Where I have a problem is when decisions are made to revert to pre-1960s technology and then trying to convince folks we will not lose any capability. If we are going to go down that road, then we should remove all computers from schools and replace them with typewriters, remove MRI devices from hospitals and rely on older technology for some diagnoses, etc. Those who sacrifice capability for the sake of dollars soon find themselves bringing a knife to a gun fight.

[pegwinn]

i didn't say there wasn't smart people in other branches.
heck, my teacher is former marines, but even he said "some of those guys don't know which side of the rock is wet." (his words, not mine)
But, air force definitely has the highest amount of brains.

That's camouflage on the Marines part. When the enemy gets in close to see if we really are that dumb.... that's what a bayonet is for. Or, if they are not dumb enough to get in close, we call in arty and air. By then his next of kin understands that only our politicians can beat us.

[Abbey Marie]

Flyboys. :thumb:

[Missileman]

The point is you could bomb them as a Naval aviator and the defense dep't. would save millions.

Let's see you get a bird off the deck with a dozen cruise missiles and I'll buy into the Navy being able to do all the missions of the AF.

[pegwinn]

For CH: Get rid of NASA? Are you mad? The only two big government projects I approve of are NASA and the public Library. You gotta be joking right?

And, for all of your posturing about a strong defense and a "forward" foriegn policy removing the entire USAF simply isn't consistent.

[ConHog]

For CH: Get rid of NASA? Are you mad? The only two big government projects I approve of are NASA and the public Library. You gotta be joking right?

And, for all of your posturing about a strong defense and a "forward" foriegn policy removing the entire USAF simply isn't consistent.

Libraries, I'm with you, but where does the federal government get the power to explore space? Not only that, but to dictate that private companies may not do so.

[fj1200]

Libraries, I'm with you, but where does the federal government get the power to explore space? Not only that, but to dictate that private companies may not do so.

Aren't you the one proclaiming that the government owns the air and hence has the power to regulate commerce therein?

[pegwinn]

Libraries, I'm with you, but where does the federal government get the power to explore space? Not only that, but to dictate that private companies may not do so.

They don't. By my own philosophy space exploration isn't enumerated. And since we allegedly signed treaties for the non-militarization of space we cannot lump it in with defense. I am not sure about exploring beyond the frontier but I don't remember it being enumerated either. So, ya caught me. Even I would love to make an exception to my own stated philosophy. Thus, I am human. Please don't tell anyone. It'll ruin my reputation.

I am a space nut from back in the day. I am convinced that if we don't expand outward, eventually we will kill ourselves off if the Mayan calendar doesn't punch our ticket first. I was not aware that the US Government forbid private companies to exploit space. I swear I read somewhere about people pre-selling trips to orbit and other such buck rogers stuff.


Aren't you the one proclaiming that the government owns the air and hence has the power to regulate commerce therein?
:clap:
Heh. I was gonna include that but I couldn't remember which thread to cross quote.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to fj1200 again :2up:

[ConHog]

Aren't you the one proclaiming that the government owns the air and hence has the power to regulate commerce therein?

I didn't proclaim they own it, I merely stated the obvious. And they aren't regulating commerce. They are merely safeguarding the airways. Much the same as they safeguard the highways.

[gabosaurus]

NO ONE is suggesting do away with the Marines.

Well, perhaps a select few of them. :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

I didn't proclaim they own it, I merely stated the obvious. And they aren't regulating commerce. They are merely safeguarding the airways. Much the same as they safeguard the highways.

Keep telling yourself that. ;)

[ConHog]

Keep telling yourself that. ;)

Let's assume you're right FJ, don't they have the congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce? And by extension I would assume you agree that states have the authority to regulate commerce within their own borders but realize that having 50 separate TSAs wouldn't make sense so they have given that right to the feds?

Either way they aren't violating their constitutional authority.

[pegwinn]

Let's assume you're right FJ, don't they have the congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce? And by extension I would assume you agree that states have the authority to regulate commerce within their own borders but realize that having 50 separate TSAs wouldn't make sense so they have given that right to the feds?

Either way they aren't violating their constitutional authority.

Oh this ought to be good. :thumb:

Please link passengers traveling on airplanes to interstate commerce. I am not saying you are wrong, but I just have to hear the rationalization. This might rank right up there with "penumbra".

And, if the states have "given that right to the feds", can you show me any documents, anywhere, by anyone, that supports this gift of power from all fifty states to the fed?

Tag, you're it! :beer:

[fj1200]

Let's assume you're right FJ, don't they have the congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce? And by extension I would assume you agree that states have the authority to regulate commerce within their own borders but realize that having 50 separate TSAs wouldn't make sense so they have given that right to the feds?

Either way they aren't violating their constitutional authority.

The question isn't whether they have the authority to regulate IC, the question is of them "regulating" by police action. The government regulates the airlines via the FAA and their use of the common airspace but they should not extend that authority beyond the airlines into a third party contractual relationship.


And, if the states have "given that right to the feds", can you show me any documents, anywhere, by anyone, that supports this gift of power from all fifty states to the fed?

The 10th Amendment don't you know. :snickers:

[ConHog]

The question isn't whether they have the authority to regulate IC, the question is of them "regulating" by police action. The government regulates the airlines via the FAA and their use of the common airspace but they should not extend that authority beyond the airlines into a third party contractual relationship.

Please show me where in the COTUS the federal government is limited to regulate IC by the methods YOU want them to be constrained to. I mean a lot of people think that the government has no business telling people they have to wear seatbelts on the highway, are they right or wrong?



The 10th Amendment don't you know. :snickers:

You and the 10th LOL

[fj1200]

Please show me where in the COTUS the federal government is limited to regulate IC by the methods YOU want them to be constrained to. I mean a lot of people think that the government has no business telling people they have to wear seatbelts on the highway, are they right or wrong?

I don't recall making a constitutional argument so therefore the argument FOR constitutionality rests on you.


You and the 10th LOL

It's your argument, afraid to wear it now?

[ConHog]

I don't recall making a constitutional argument so therefore the argument FOR constitutionality rests on you.



Actually no. The onus is on YOU to prove it is unconstitutional if you want it stopped.




It's your argument, afraid to wear it now?

Not sure how the 10th is MY argument, but okay then.

[pegwinn]

I don't recall making a constitutional argument so therefore the argument FOR constitutionality rests on you.


Actually no. The onus is on YOU to prove it is unconstitutional if you want it stopped.

Actually, the person or entity asserting the power is obliged to demonstrate that it is entitled to the power. So, since Uncle Sugar decided it had the power to place the TSA on the entire transportation infrastructure.... it's up to them to prove that they have the authority to do so.

They could point to the host of laws that pre and post date 9/11. Such as the creation of the Department of Homeland Security for example. Each law on it's own must be authorised by the words in the Constitution.

[ConHog]

Actually, the person or entity asserting the power is obliged to demonstrate that it is entitled to the power. So, since Uncle Sugar decided it had the power to place the TSA on the entire transportation infrastructure.... it's up to them to prove that they have the authority to do so.

They could point to the host of laws that pre and post date 9/11. Such as the creation of the Department of Homeland Security for example. Each law on it's own must be authorised by the words in the Constitution.

That is true, but I'm not the party trying to gain power. They have now gained that power, so the onus would be on YOU to show why they are in violation of the COTUS.

[fj1200]

Actually no. The onus is on YOU to prove it is unconstitutional if you want it stopped.

Ridiculous and stupid regulations have been rolled back many previous times, read the late 70's, without having to assert something is unconstitutional. However, since you don't want the TSA to expand beyond airports, which they are now doing apparently, you better brush up on your con law to get them to roll back to your arbitrary level of expansion.


Not sure how the 10th is MY argument, but okay then.

You're the only one making it and using it as justification.


That is true, but I'm not the party trying to gain power. They have now gained that power, so the onus would be on YOU to show why they are in violation of the COTUS.

That's an utterly ridiculous position, only a violation of the constitution is required to roll back government expansion? :slap:

Your overuse of "COTUS" as THE argument is funny.

[ConHog]

Ridiculous and stupid regulations have been rolled back many previous times, read the late 70's, without having to assert something is unconstitutional. However, since you don't want the TSA to expand beyond airports, which they are now doing apparently, you better brush up on your con law to get them to roll back to your arbitrary level of expansion.




Of course they can be rolled back without asserting that something is unconstitutional, but that isn't the discussion. YOU are claiming that the TSA is unconstitutional, so the burden is on you to make that case, it isn't on me to make the case that they are constitutional. Obviously though the government could just say "screw it" and shut down the entire TSA as they are not required by law to have one. But the same could be said for the FBI, CIA,DEA... Well you get the point.



You're the only one making it and using it as justification.

I'll remind the class that it is YOU who keeps bringing up the 10th Amendment, not me. I don't seek to justify this by the 10th because I believe that the national security aspect of it covers it nicely.




That's an utterly ridiculous position, only a violation of the constitution is required to roll back government expansion? :slap:

Your overuse of "COTUS" as THE argument is funny.

Once again, that is not what I've said at all. ALL I have said is that if you believe the TSA is unconstitutional then you must prove it is, not ask the government to prove it is not.

[fj1200]

YOU are claiming that the TSA is unconstitutional, so the burden is on you to make that case, it isn't on me to make the case that they are constitutional.

Where did I do that?


I'll remind the class that it is YOU who keeps bringing up the 10th Amendment, not me. I don't seek to justify this by the 10th because I believe that the national security aspect of it covers it nicely.

Because I think your position is funny and that it can be used as justification for just about anything. National security? Did Congress declare war on airline passengers?


Once again, that is not what I've said at all. ALL I have said is that if you believe the TSA is unconstitutional then you must prove it is, not ask the government to prove it is not.

Au contraire.

[ConHog]

Where did I do that?



Because I think your position is funny and that it can be used as justification for just about anything. National security? Did Congress declare war on airline passengers?



Au contraire.

Tell you what FJ, I've seen the way you debate with others, and I've seen the way you debate with me. I have enough people on this board who just want to play games and such without adding you to the list, so you "win" the thread. I'm out. Have a good one.

[fj1200]

Tell you what FJ, I've seen the way you debate with others, and I've seen the way you debate with me. I have enough people on this board who just want to play games and such without adding you to the list, so you "win" the thread. I'm out. Have a good one.

Is there a difference in how I debate with others vs. you? There are no games here.