F/A-18 Hornet strike fighter fact sheet
Unfortunately, I know very little about these machines other than the posters and models I had as a kid. I just discovered the Tomcat was decommissioned - ouch....
Posted on 11/02/2007 1:36:49 PM PDT by DesScorp
Strictly speaking the Air Force is unconstitutional as well.
Read it again.
Go girl!
Like Vietnam, the Russians failed to controll the countryside. Not to mention the Russians had no experience fighting in the type of terrain in Afghanistan.
As for Vietnam, the COIN there was killing the bad guys. Look up Operation Phoenix. We were eliminating Viet Cong leadership, not winning their hearts and minds.
I’m talking about our military in this century. I also think that if you, like AndyJackson believe the hearts and minds of Muslims can be won you are going to be sorely disappointed.
And tell me this, where has counter insurgency ever worked well against militant religious fanatics? This isn’t just a rebellion to stop, it’s a culture that needs elimination.
I never mentioned nukes by the way, I said our Air Force might be more useful (in reference to the article) if we allowed them to bomb the enemy out of existence.
If the third world muslims would just mind their own business and stay in their own hell hole I would care less. Unfortunately they want to rule the world, not make nice like you and Andy and W think.
If you want to make nice with the enemy, send in the Red Cross, the Peace Corp and the Salvation Army, not our military.
HUH?
I don’t know what to think. My Father was in the Army Air Forces during WWII but was part of the switch and retired from the Air Force in 1956.
The Russians tried to bomb the countryside into submission. It didn’t work then, and won’t now.
Afghanistan is not dominated by Islamic fanatics. The remote countryside has them, but even there the Afghan culture isn’t big into forcing someone else to believe what you do.
The COIN we’re doing IS killing the bad guys, and in large numbers. The problem are the bad guys in a safe haven in Pakistan. However, many Afghans don’t like Paks who cross the border.
And we ARE winning hearts and minds of Muslims. They are sending girls to school in record numbers in Afghanistan, and folks are starting to watch TV...a good way to spread the message. In rural areas, our biggest problem is that tribal leaders don’t believe we’ll be there for the long haul, so they hedge their bets - but few of them love the Taliban.
Bombing the hell out of folks won’t work. Sorry, but the US Army DOES know what it is doing (as does the USAF in its role, per this thread). We are winning, but we need the time to finish the job.
Going to school and watching tv is going to do it? Okay. Let’s look at all the educated terrorists. Osama, the 9/11 hijackers, the people running Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Sure, they love us because they can watch tv and the women go to school.
That’ll do it./sarc
You talk of a take over of the Minuteman, B-2... Not only does the Navy aslo have ballistic experience, the author doesn’t say replace the personnel, just change the command structure. I still don’t understand what you feel would be lost, other than a uniform.
Actually, unifying all branches of the armed forces does not follow logically from the author’s argument. He clearly states that the USAF was originally a part of the ARMY and became a seperate branch after a desire to gain prestige.
Read Article I, Section 8. It authorizes the funding of an army and a navy. It doesn’t mention a separate branch called an air force.
>> That’s my only cool JSTARS photo, though.
And very cool indeed - thanks for posting it!
We’re trying to win the majority. Hell, we’ve got freaks here in the US that want us all to die - but if you win a solid majority, you force them underground and make them less effective.
We will always have folks who hate us. Short of killing everyone in the globe, we cannot change that - but if we win solid majorities, that will give us the upper hand.
We are doing that now. I may not want the US Army running airpower, but they are an amazing organization for winning wars on the ground.
Are you saying the Constitution doesn’t allow for the common defense?
I ask because there is a world of difference in how those assets are viewed and used. The author doesn't seem to understand any of this. His article is simplistic to the point of being a joke.
I understand what you are saying, I just disagree. I don’t believe they can be trusted. They won’t stay underground.
In any event I don’t agree that the Army should run the Air Force either. Each of the services have their job and they all do their own quite well. Our troops are the best on land, on sea and in the air.
I’d like to get rid of the freaks here too. I don’t believe we could ever win them over either. If 9/11 didn’t do it, nothing will.
We’re on the same page, we just differ in how we think we should fight.
And it was written when? I guess their crystal balls were out of commission.
Smiles oh so sweetly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.