F35 good or bad? - Page 6
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 101 to 115 of 115
  1. #101
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    3,157
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4007
    Likes (Received)
    12668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by otrlt View Post
    We are the center of the universe.

    The billions we spend to keep us on top is a investment that provides lasting peace throughout the world.

    While you discuss the F35, there is no let up in R&D Fighter funding. Wind tunnel models are always in flux.

    It can be very expensive and dangerous to try to go toe to toe with the US.
    I now believe in parallel universes I'm not in yours.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California, Central Coast
    Posts
    3,335
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2153
    Likes (Received)
    1300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trueturning View Post
    It is a waste of effort to engage in any meaningful discussion when you disrespect the United States and the Constitution of the United States. Your freedom to speak and practice your religion is protected by the Constitution of the United States. We spread freedom and do not take it away.

    At least attack countries that deserve it which take away freedom.
    Please answer EG's question about how exactly beating up on small overseas countries "protects our freedom" here in mainland USA.

    Like what happened in Libya? Protecting our freedom?

    Ten Reasons Libya Under Gaddafi Was a Great Place to Live | The African Exponent

    Libya: Ten Things About Gaddafi They Don’t Want You to Know - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

    The two links are not the same list repeated some items are but not all.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    428
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    219
    Likes (Received)
    69

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California, Central Coast
    Posts
    3,335
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2153
    Likes (Received)
    1300

    Default

    This thread seem to bring patriotism into question so I will ask "Is it patriotic to criticize our gov?" Or is it "more patriotic" to do what the gov wants at all times?
    Here are some links I found quickly on an online search that shed some light on this:

    Is it possible to criticize the government and be patriotic? | Debate.org!

    Is it patriotic or anti-American to criticize the US? - Quora

    Quote by Theodore Roosevelt: “Patriotism means to stand by the country. It do...”

    And what is happening here at home:

    9/11 Solidified the Destruction of Our Freedom – The Future of Freedom Foundation

    Last sentence of the above links short story:

    "It all adds up to the destruction of American liberty. There is only one way to get our freedom back: the dismantling of the national-security state and the restoration of a limited-government republic."

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    428
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    219
    Likes (Received)
    69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob F. View Post
    Please answer EG's question about how exactly beating up on small overseas countries "protects our freedom" here in mainland USA.

    Like what happened in Libya? Protecting our freedom?

    Ten Reasons Libya Under Gaddafi Was a Great Place to Live | The African Exponent

    Libya: Ten Things About Gaddafi They Don’t Want You to Know - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

    The two links are not the same list repeated some items are but not all.
    It expanded freedom. Even your freedom is enhanced when this is necessary.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California, Central Coast
    Posts
    3,335
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2153
    Likes (Received)
    1300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trueturning View Post
    It expanded freedom. Even your freedom is enhanced when this is necessary.
    I dont understand what you mean.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    428
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    219
    Likes (Received)
    69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob F. View Post
    I dont understand what you mean.
    Nor I you.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California, Central Coast
    Posts
    3,335
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2153
    Likes (Received)
    1300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trueturning View Post
    Nor I you.
    Please explain how USA overthrowing Libya (or any other small country) expanded freedom here at home.

  9. Likes TeachMePlease liked this post
  10. #109
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    2,982
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    6965
    Likes (Received)
    2525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post
    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...

  11. #110
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    3,157
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4007
    Likes (Received)
    12668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jashley73 View Post
    Maybe not now. But if Denmark buy's any F35's, you will be...
    Keep up to date Denmark has bought 27.

  12. #111
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    1,949
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    901

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trueturning View Post
    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.

  13. #112
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Florida
    Posts
    428
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    219
    Likes (Received)
    69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    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.

  14. #113
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    1,949
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    901

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trueturning View Post
    bla blitty bla blitty bla bla bla ...
    That's what I thought. Horseshit.

  15. #114
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,470
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    442
    Likes (Received)
    1751

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    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.

  16. Likes Jashley73 liked this post
  17. #115
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    1,949
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    901

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jancollc View Post
    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.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •