F35 good or bad?

[Rob F.]

Nor I you.

Please explain how USA overthrowing Libya (or any other small country) expanded freedom here at home.

 

[Jashley73]

I now believe in parallel universes I'm not in yours.

Maybe not now. But if Denmark buy's any F35's, you will be...

 

[Gordon B. Clarke]

Maybe not now. But if Denmark buy's any F35's, you will be...

Keep up to date Denmark has bought 27.

 

[EmGo]

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.

 

[Trueturning]

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.

Don’t want to traipse into the weeds with you on that. Your point is the US professional military is unconstitutional right? I won’t bite yet someone that is interested in helping you out of the weeds and your unrealistic views would be better. Someone with as much persistence as you yet not from the dark side like you.

You are afraid of feedback from him because he unpacks your nonsense with style.

Take on someone who is more than happy to engage with you as it will take someone determined and very persistent and patient to show you the path to truth.

He is right on this forum. Reach out to him at your own peril I do not have enough years left to sort you out.

 

[EmGo]

bla blitty bla blitty bla bla bla ...

That's what I thought. Horseshit.

 

[guest]

So this leaves me with a puzzle ... both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists despised a standing army (aka professional military).

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.

There was certainly a general mistrust of standing armies- the Framers understood that standing armies are the preferred tool of tyrants. Their fear was an over-powerful executive. Remember- at the time, there was no executive- they were in the process of creating it.

You are right in that the anti-Federalists wanted the army to be made up of State militias only.

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. And they set limits- the Army clause restricts funding for an army to 2 year periods. The Navy clause has no such restriction- they clearly viewed the Navy as a lesser threat to liberty.

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.

And of course one of the reasons for the Constitution, specified in the Preamble itself- to "provide for the common defense".

So 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.

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.

 

[EmGo]

Well, they didn't "despise" standing armies, and they didn't equate a standing army to a 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.

And they specifically differentiated between a "militia" (which everyone admired) and a professional army.

I would personally say that in WW II we had a militia, and ever since a "standing army."

Their fear was an over-powerful executive. Remember- at the time, there was no executive- they were in the process of creating it.

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.

btw, a good example of how the US military has "given us freedom" is the recent case of Venezuela. The place is/was a mess, everyone hated Maduro, until bigmouth Trump just had to threaten an invasion. Then the people of Venezuela gathered behind that twat Maduro in the face of a threatened invasion by the US.

Nobody likes to be invaded. Nobody. The US Army is the enforcement arm of the Mafia in Washington. They are hated worldwide, with good reason. Sorry to say but this is not "defending my freedom" in any way, shape or form.

You are right in that the anti-Federalists wanted the army to be made up of State militias only.

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.

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.

Yes. For defense and only after Congress had declared war.

When was the last time Congress declared war ?

How does training death squads in South America defend the United States ? How did bombing the shit out of Cambodia and Laos defend the United States ? When did Congress declare war on Vietnam ? Afghanistan ? Libya ? Grenada ? Iraq ?

Saying that "they allowed it in the budget" is crap. The founders required that CONGRESS declare war first, no ifs ands or buts, before the executive could command an army to do anything.

And they most certainly were 100% entirely opposed to "projecting power". They believed in defense.

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.

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.

And of course one of the reasons for the Constitution, specified in the Preamble itself- to "provide for the common defense".

Exactly !

Now explain to me how bombing the shit out of peasants in Vietnam, attacking hoispitals in Afghanistan, shooting down airliners in Iran defends the US ?

All these activities would have the founders coming to Washington with pitchforks and flaming torches.

So 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.

Not really. They disliked a professional army as well. I can go find quotes if you like - they are pretty scathing on the subject

The anti-federalists believe in a militia - citizens that would put on a uniform when necessary. Think WW II. The federalists sort of believed in that but thought that an amateur force would not be able to stand up to foreign professionals, so they grit their teeth and set up a system meant to control the military. Ha. Good luck with that.

NONE of them thought a professional army was a good thing.

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.

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.

So I do not see how anyone can claim a person is "anti-American" for abhorrence of the professional military. All the people who founded the United States shared that disliike, distrust, even loathing for a professional military. With good reason.

A militia is not a professional military. By equating the two you are being disingenuous.


*Speaking of which, who in the fuck gave that asshole the right to levy tariffs ? It is certainly illegal and any enabling legislation that created that situation is unconstitutional. It's bullshit, total bullshit, exactly what the founders feared in an overpowerful executive. Fucking cowardly Congress should be drowned like unwanted kittens.

 

[Rob F.]

Is anyone watching what is happening with the "lost" F35?
I'm not sure what is meant by "aviation units", do they mean F35's or more?

THEY LOST A F*CKING F-35 FIGHTER JET????

They can release video of Lauren Broebert getting her titties squeezed in a dark movie theater, but somehow manage to lose an F-35 fighter jet. These are the jackoffs who are going to beat Russia a…

www.theburningplatform.com

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1703902260898713963

text of twitter post:
"So apparently a US pilot, for reasons that remain unclear, ejected from a still-flying Marine Corps F-35B somewhere over South Carolina, but a frantic search cannot locate the abandoned jet. And now the USMC commandant has ordered a two-day "stand-down" for "all aviation units" around the world!!!

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.

WHY?

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".

Well ... I cannot for the life of me imagine what would warrant such an extreme action on the part of the US military. But it simply must be something that has severely spooked them.

Developing ...

(Edit: to be clear, I absolutely do NOT believe this jet was commandeered and landed safely somewhere. To me, that is a silly theory.)

https://abcnews.go.com/US/marines-continue-search-35-after-mishap-officials-order/story?id=103287655…"

As Marines continue to search for F-35 after 'mishap,' officials order 2-day stand-down for all jets

After a "mishap" with an F-35 fighter jet in South Carolina on Sunday, the Marine Corps commandant issued a two-day service-wide stand-down for all aviation units

abcnews.go.com

Twitter poster added his edit since there is some on line chatter theorizing that the jet flew itself to cuba and landed....?

edit:
these are looking to be a bit more stealthy than first thought....

 

[jaguar36]

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.

WHY?

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".

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.

 

[michiganbuck]

Wow, another event showing that Government Bozos make some poor decisions.

 

[mattthemuppet]

Man, I think we should just get rid of government itself. That way they can never make mistakes

 

[Rob F.]

As jag36 mentioned the jet has been found, here is an article on it:
Also has a little more info on the "stand down" of marine corps aviation.

Military Finds F-35 Debris 80 Miles From Pilot's Ejection Area | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[Rob F.]

At about 10 minutes in Larry Johnson talks about the F35:

 

[john.k]

According to the BBC ,the plane was on autopilot,and the ejection was automatically initiated ..........due to the high tech coating ,every tiny particle of the plane has to be found and removed to a secure location.

 

[standardparts]

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.

"management steps in and tells everyone they need to stop, take a step back and focus on safety for a bit."
And while everyone "is focusing on safety" management retires to a nice secure place, figures out what happened, and then come up with an explanation of what they want people to think happened with final results released in around two years. (depending on who's career may be impacted)