So this leaves me with a puzzle ... both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists despised a standing army (aka professional military). The only difference between them was the Anti-Federalists didn't want the Constitution ratified partly on the grounds that they did not want a professional military at all, no way no how, while the Federalists agreed that a professional military was shit, but they felt that in the case of self-defense it was necessary. They believed that by making Congress superior to the military, the dangers could be controlled.Sorry EG on the US Military you are just as biased and Anti American as that post is.
So this leaves me with a puzzle ... both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists despised a standing army (aka professional military). The only difference between them was the Anti-Federalists didn't want the Constitution ratified partly on the grounds that they did not want a professional military at all, no way no how, while the Federalists agreed that a professional military was shit, but they felt that in the case of self-defense it was necessary. They believed that by making Congress superior to the military, the dangers could be controlled.
Everyone involved in creating the United States despised a professional military. Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Samuel Adams, James Monroe, Noah Webster, James Marshall -- if they signed the Declaration of Independence or voted to ratify the Constitution or voted against ratifying the Constitution, they despised a professional military. Some accepted it as an evil necessity, others believed it should be avoided at all costs.
The US military is currently doing exactly what all the founding fathers feared.
I guess you are saying that all the people who created the United States were Anti American ? I find that hard to understand.
Well, they didn't "despise" standing armies, and they didn't equate a standing army to a professional military- e.g. there were no restrictions placed on the Navy.So this leaves me with a puzzle ... both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists despised a standing army (aka professional military).
I would say that's exactly what they did. I can dig up some quotes for you, but shouldn't spend that much time.Well, they didn't "despise" standing armies, and they didn't equate a standing army to a professional military ...
True, that was one of their fears. The other was that a professional military would be the tool of an overpowerful executive*. The two go together. Obviously, who cares what one nincompoop like Caligula says ? But put the army behind him and you have Nicolas Meduro or Augusto Pinochet.Their fear was an over-powerful executive. Remember- at the time, there was no executive- they were in the process of creating it.
And the Federalists openly wrote that a standing army of any kind was an abomination, but they felt that it was a necessary abomination. That's why they fenced it in with many layers of legalities, which are all totally ignored today.You are right in that the anti-Federalists wanted the army to be made up of State militias only.
Yes. For defense and only after Congress had declared war.But they still recognized the need for an army, so the compromise they settled on was to give the power to Congress to raise one, and to the executive to command it.
Certainly. They understood that armed defense was necesary, hence the second amendment. Both sides believed in militias. The difference between them was that the Federalists thought that a militia would not be effective against a trained army, so they accepted that it was a necessity for defense. They ringed the standing army with as many layers of legality as they could, and still the Anti-Federalists, e.g. Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and many other famous anti-Americans resisted.The Constitution also gives the Congress the power to purchase and control State lands for "the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings". Again- they recognized the need.
Exactly !And of course one of the reasons for the Constitution, specified in the Preamble itself- to "provide for the common defense".
Not really. They disliked a professional army as well. I can go find quotes if you like - they are pretty scathing on the subjectSo yes to the general mistrust- but not due to a dislike for the military, rather the fear of an over-powerful executive and the abuses that go along with it.
And it was wrapped up in legal restrictions which kept it from behaving the way it does today. Even LBJ recognized the need for pretenses. But recently, Congress has abdicated its responsibilities entirely. The professional military has become everything the founders feared.We've always had a standing army- it was created in the very first session of Congress at Washington's urging. They took elements of the Continental Army and created the "Regular Army", which evolved into today's US Army. It still, along with the rest of the US military, operates on short-term appropriations.
Not at all, it suggests nothing of the sort.Note well, the order is not for "all F-35 units", but for "all aviation units".
To me, that must be interpreted as everything that flies — attack aircraft, tankers, helicopters, etc.
This makes absolutely no sense at all — and STRONGLY suggests that they actually DO KNOW what happened to that F-35B ... and it must be DAMN SERIOUS — and somehow applicable to ALL AIRCRAFT for them to have ordered a total stand-down of "all aviation units".
"management steps in and tells everyone they need to stop, take a step back and focus on safety for a bit."Not at all, it suggests nothing of the sort.
The Marines have had 3 Class A mishaps in the last few weeks, and just like if you've had a number of serious safety incidents in a shop in a short period of time, management steps in and tells everyone they need to stop, take a step back and focus on safety for a bit.
This is not particularly unusual, although disappointing. The mishaps were all unrelated and it was probably just a coincidence that they occurred in a short timespan rather than a sign of a lack of proper training or vigilance by the aviators.
As for not being able to find the F-35 (which they have now since located), between whatever issues caused the pilots to eject and the ejection rockets themselves, the transponder stopped working. Planes are designed to fly and the search radius becomes very large, very quickly when you're going 600+mph. Here is a crazy story of a F-106 landing all by itself after the pilot ejected. An F-35 likely wouldn't be very stable at all in its stricken state, but still could go quite a long ways.