Deplaned

Member Comments

• • Reply
  • Report Abuse

  Posted By: carlsonloggie @ 06/10/2008 1:06:50 PM

  The United States constitution (Article I, Section 8) allows Congress to fund an Army and a Navy, but not an Air Force. Therefore the Unites States Air Force, as a separate branch of the service, is unconstitutional. The proper role for the Air Force is to be part of the Department of the Army, just like the Marines are part of the Department of the Navy. Historically the Air Force was the Army Air Corps, and it could and should take that role again.
  Look at the mischief that has taken place after the creation of the Air Force as a separate service.
  1) The US Army needs close air support, but is not allowed to operate fixed-wing aircraft. The aircraft the Army preferred for the close air support mission was the A-10 Thunderbolt, but it was prohibited from operating it. Meanwhile the Air Force dislikes the close air support mission and sought to replace the A-10s with modified F-16s. Congress was forced to step in and require the Air Force to maintain two wings of A-10 aircraft. And, as it turns out, the modified A-16 and F/A-16 have been underwhelming, while the A-10 has proven itself in combat time and time again. (The A-10 is now scheduled to stay in service until 2028.)
  2) The Air Force has transport aircraft of known size and configuration. Yet the Army procures equipment that does not fit well on Air Force transports. The Abrams tank is so heavy that only two can be carried in the aging C-5, and only one in the newer C-17. If memory serves, the new Stryker combat vehicle is so large it requires waivers to transport it on the C-17.
  3) Radio communications between the Army and the Air Force are still difficult; the lessons of Grenada and the two Gulf Wars notwithstanding.
  4) Even when they are on the same base, the security standards for the Army and the Air Force are different, and so they have to maintain separate computer networks.
  This is nonsense. The Marines and the Navy have to cooperate, because neither can get the job done without the other. The Air Force cooperates with no one, fails to understand the true nature of combat, and seems to actually believe that Air Power???instead of boots on the ground???wins wars.
  It is time to end the charade, and draw a curtain on the Air Force as a separate service.
  

• • Reply
  • Report Abuse

  Posted By: Trooper101st @ 06/07/2008 9:24:41 AM

  Gates is doing a fine job. Its a shame he wasn't appointed earlier. Rumsfeld was a disaster, and should be arrested, along with other staff and cabinet members, for DERELICTION OF DUTY. Then maybe the truth will come out about this misguided, mismanaged Iraq war. You go Gates!!

• • Reply
  • Report Abuse

  Posted By: burbank @ 06/07/2008 2:08:25 AM

  To: Nins: When you refer to TOUGH diplomacy, do you mean the same kind of tough diplomacy that Chamberlain used with Hitler? As history shows, it was that kind of TOUGH diplomacy that got us involved in WWII. You say that "Diplomats make us safe because they difuse anger and open new ways for other people to express their greivances without war or terrorism". Please. Your naivete is showing. Have you forgot the "diplomacy" of Korea? A country that we are still technically at war with. Or, how about the "diplomacy" of Viet Nam? The diplomacy of the first Gulf War? A more recent example of diplomatic insouciance was the tragedy of the USS Cole. Had the Yemeni ambassador Barbara Bodine swallowed her diplomatic pride and allowed FBI -SAC in charge of counter-terrorism John O Neil access to the principal actors that were involved in that act of war, he could have connected the dots in that investigation to other actors involved with plotting the attack on the World Trade Center which was carried out on Sept. 11, 2001. These are just a few examples of how your kind of TOUGH diplomacy works.
  
  You mention Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs. That had nothing to do with the Cuban Missile Crisis. Get your facts straight. And the diplomacy you credit Kennedy with in resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis had nothing to do with his diplomatic acumen. The credit goes to a KGB Col. by the name of Oleg Penkofsky. It was his passing of critical intelligence about the capabalities of the Soviet Strategic Rocket forces that enabled Kennedy to negotiate forcefully with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, defusing that potential nuclear imbroglio.
  
  History, and the examples I have given has shown that your kind of "TOUGH" diplomacy does nothing to resolve conflict. In fact, the conflict once begun, is fought with greater intensity and with greater casualities because the problems leading up to the conflict have been nurtured in the womb of political debate, allowing the enemy to build his forces into a juggernaut that enables him to carry out his diabolical machinations, much to the chagrin you esteemed diplomats. It was Chamberlain who said in September 1939, "Everything I have dreamed of, everything I have hoped for, everything I have worked toward has crashed in flames". Diplomacy failed then, it is failing now. You cannot now or ever negotiate with despots, tyrants,and dictators. They will take your diplomacy and weave it into rope with which they will hang you with. Diplomacy is only successful after you beat your enemy decisively on the field of battle. That is how "TOUGH" diplomacy really works.