Comments on: Journalistic Ignorance http://militarygear.com/asp/2009/04/21/journalistic-ignorance/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=journalistic-ignorance The Web’s Leading Military Blog Since 2004 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:29:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Pro(paganda) F-16, sau viol cu siameze « Resboiu http://militarygear.com/asp/2009/04/21/journalistic-ignorance/#comment-62935 Pro(paganda) F-16, sau viol cu siameze « Resboiu Mon, 05 Jul 2010 11:09:34 +0000 http://militarygear.com/asp/?p=5006#comment-62935 [...] Sursa: Soldiersperspective.us [...] [...] Sursa: Soldiersperspective.us [...]

]]> By: Thomas Patrick Folan http://militarygear.com/asp/2009/04/21/journalistic-ignorance/#comment-49189 Thomas Patrick Folan Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:55:25 +0000 http://militarygear.com/asp/?p=5006#comment-49189 Good Job C.J. Long live the U.S. Air Force ! Down with the N.Y. Times. No one should purchase this newspaper. If they continue with anti-military editorials like this, they'll go right out of business. Good Job C.J.
Long live the U.S. Air Force !
Down with the N.Y. Times.
No one should purchase this newspaper.
If they continue with anti-military editorials like this,
they’ll go right out of business.

]]> By: Russo http://militarygear.com/asp/2009/04/21/journalistic-ignorance/#comment-49180 Russo Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:25:33 +0000 http://militarygear.com/asp/?p=5006#comment-49180 Thank you, CJ. One thing I think we can agree on related to this debate: Defense contractors in this country make too much of a profit. Yes? Just in principle, I don't think any company should be allowed to make a profit on the tools of our nation's defense. Profiting on those tools is profiting on the dangers to our nation, and that's treason. We should pay the true cost of developing and building weapons systems, without the ridiculous markup (anyone have figures?) that the defense contractors put on them. Thank you, CJ.

One thing I think we can agree on related to this debate: Defense contractors in this country make too much of a profit. Yes?

Just in principle, I don’t think any company should be allowed to make a profit on the tools of our nation’s defense. Profiting on those tools is profiting on the dangers to our nation, and that’s treason.

We should pay the true cost of developing and building weapons systems, without the ridiculous markup (anyone have figures?) that the defense contractors put on them.

]]> By: CJ http://militarygear.com/asp/2009/04/21/journalistic-ignorance/#comment-49175 CJ Fri, 24 Apr 2009 03:35:28 +0000 http://militarygear.com/asp/?p=5006#comment-49175 Russo, I won't ever accuse of not supporting the troops. Don't worry about that. I just disagree with you. The Air Force and Army, like the FBI and CIA, have VERY different jobs as well. That is why they were split after WWII. Russo, I won’t ever accuse of not supporting the troops. Don’t worry about that. I just disagree with you. The Air Force and Army, like the FBI and CIA, have VERY different jobs as well. That is why they were split after WWII.

]]> By: Russo http://militarygear.com/asp/2009/04/21/journalistic-ignorance/#comment-49174 Russo Fri, 24 Apr 2009 03:32:21 +0000 http://militarygear.com/asp/?p=5006#comment-49174 Alright, a lot being said against my argument tempts me to say a lot in response, but I will try to keep it short and to the point. 1. I respect the armed forces and all the men and women who sacrifice, at home and abroad, to serve our country and protect the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. I'm nearly 22, graduating college this May and working towards Marine Corps OCS this October. I want to do my part to serve the nation. I'm not some anti-military liberal trying to cause trouble. I'm here to discuss and learn. 2. Please read my posts more carefully. CJ misunderstood my last post. I did not, nor would I ever, suggest the FBI and CIA be combined. I presented them as an example of agencies that should NOT be combined, like the Coast guard and Navy, because they have clearly different missions. 3. Everyone is generally arguing that if we agree to combine the Air Force into the other services then it would never stop and we would inevitably compromise our national security. As I have intimated before, however, there is a definite line between expensive redundancy and a good investment in mission specialization. In my opinion folding the Air Force into the other services does not at all lead to the logic that all the services should be combined. 4. Lastly, if we were to embark on any such policy at all, we should analyze the pros and cons of every instance. 5. I want to say so much more because posters are bringing up valid points. Generally I agree with all of them. I only disagree that the situations you present, rightly, as undesirable, would occur at all. ie. We'd still have the Joint Chiefs, the Army/Marines would still have amphibious assault capabilities, etc. So, have at me... Alright, a lot being said against my argument tempts me to say a lot in response, but I will try to keep it short and to the point.

1. I respect the armed forces and all the men and women who sacrifice, at home and abroad, to serve our country and protect the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. I’m nearly 22, graduating college this May and working towards Marine Corps OCS this October. I want to do my part to serve the nation. I’m not some anti-military liberal trying to cause trouble. I’m here to discuss and learn.

2. Please read my posts more carefully. CJ misunderstood my last post. I did not, nor would I ever, suggest the FBI and CIA be combined. I presented them as an example of agencies that should NOT be combined, like the Coast guard and Navy, because they have clearly different missions.

3. Everyone is generally arguing that if we agree to combine the Air Force into the other services then it would never stop and we would inevitably compromise our national security. As I have intimated before, however, there is a definite line between expensive redundancy and a good investment in mission specialization. In my opinion folding the Air Force into the other services does not at all lead to the logic that all the services should be combined.

4. Lastly, if we were to embark on any such policy at all, we should analyze the pros and cons of every instance.

5. I want to say so much more because posters are bringing up valid points. Generally I agree with all of them. I only disagree that the situations you present, rightly, as undesirable, would occur at all. ie. We’d still have the Joint Chiefs, the Army/Marines would still have amphibious assault capabilities, etc.

So, have at me…

]]> By: CJ http://militarygear.com/asp/2009/04/21/journalistic-ignorance/#comment-49173 CJ Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:17:18 +0000 http://militarygear.com/asp/?p=5006#comment-49173 How about this too while we're at? We combine the FBI and CIA into one agency as you indicate and there is a domestic and overseas branch. Then, we could roll up the DEA, Border Patrol, and BATF into the DOD as well with an expanded mission. I mean we could save all sorts of money by just integrated all our military and militia-like entities into one. Even within the services we can combine everything. We could create infantry pilots so that when/if they get shot down, they can keep on fighting. Engineering intelligence Soldiers could blow stuff up and then collect intelligence on what they just destroyed, or vice versa. The possibilities are endless. We have been so inefficient all these years and didn't even know it! Military police cooks! Holy cow, I'm on to something here! How about this too while we’re at? We combine the FBI and CIA into one agency as you indicate and there is a domestic and overseas branch. Then, we could roll up the DEA, Border Patrol, and BATF into the DOD as well with an expanded mission.

I mean we could save all sorts of money by just integrated all our military and militia-like entities into one.

Even within the services we can combine everything. We could create infantry pilots so that when/if they get shot down, they can keep on fighting. Engineering intelligence Soldiers could blow stuff up and then collect intelligence on what they just destroyed, or vice versa. The possibilities are endless. We have been so inefficient all these years and didn’t even know it!

Military police cooks! Holy cow, I’m on to something here!

]]> By: Jim Cochran http://militarygear.com/asp/2009/04/21/journalistic-ignorance/#comment-49172 Jim Cochran Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:07:10 +0000 http://militarygear.com/asp/?p=5006#comment-49172 You know we have the joint chiefs that are to tie all this together. If we had it combined you would have the same problem you have in the NFL - if the coach was a defensive he would try to build a defensive team. If he was offensive an offensive team. I could imagine the internal budget fights pushing one focus or the other. I think we now need a cyber branch of the military to help protect communications and hardened it for the other branches. Yes separate - They might win wars before the enemy got off of the ground. Forget the civilian corps - it will evolve into the NAZI brownshirts for the socialist commies in our midst to control elections - watch and see. You know we have the joint chiefs that are to tie all this together. If we had it combined you would have the same problem you have in the NFL – if the coach was a defensive he would try to build a defensive team. If he was offensive an offensive team. I could imagine the internal budget fights pushing one focus or the other. I think we now need a cyber branch of the military to help protect communications and hardened it for the other branches. Yes separate – They might win wars before the enemy got off of the ground. Forget the civilian corps – it will evolve into the NAZI brownshirts for the socialist commies in our midst to control elections – watch and see.

]]> By: Marcus http://militarygear.com/asp/2009/04/21/journalistic-ignorance/#comment-49170 Marcus Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:40:15 +0000 http://militarygear.com/asp/?p=5006#comment-49170 Are you KIDDING me? You obviously know nothing of Marine Corps history and tradition. Yes, the Corps has moved away from it's amphibious roots in assaulting beaches during combat operations over the last several decades due to threats coming form land locked countries, but I dare you to ask an Army unit to conduct an amphib landing. It'd be a JOKE. Now, ask the Marines and you'll see some awesome stuff. Bottom line: we need an infantry that can move itself from a big ship to the beach and then assault enemy positions. Are you KIDDING me? You obviously know nothing of Marine Corps history and tradition. Yes, the Corps has moved away from it’s amphibious roots in assaulting beaches during combat operations over the last several decades due to threats coming form land locked countries, but I dare you to ask an Army unit to conduct an amphib landing. It’d be a JOKE. Now, ask the Marines and you’ll see some awesome stuff.

Bottom line: we need an infantry that can move itself from a big ship to the beach and then assault enemy positions.

]]> By: Russo http://militarygear.com/asp/2009/04/21/journalistic-ignorance/#comment-49169 Russo Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:08:41 +0000 http://militarygear.com/asp/?p=5006#comment-49169 You're not helping your case with sarcasm. The Coast Guard quip is facile, like suggesting the FBI and CIA be joined into one agency. Their separate existence is a reflection of their separate missions. Yes, folding the Corps into the Army is largely the same as folding the Air Force into all the other services. Yes, the goal would be to save money. What's wrong with that if we manage to avoid reducing our military capabilities? You did bring up a good question: Why DO we need two infantries? Leaving it unanswered suggests we don't. You’re not helping your case with sarcasm.

The Coast Guard quip is facile, like suggesting the FBI and CIA be joined into one agency. Their separate existence is a reflection of their separate missions.

Yes, folding the Corps into the Army is largely the same as folding the Air Force into all the other services. Yes, the goal would be to save money. What’s wrong with that if we manage to avoid reducing our military capabilities?

You did bring up a good question: Why DO we need two infantries? Leaving it unanswered suggests we don’t.

]]> By: CJ http://militarygear.com/asp/2009/04/21/journalistic-ignorance/#comment-49152 CJ Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:10:11 +0000 http://militarygear.com/asp/?p=5006#comment-49152 Well, hell! In that case, let's get rid of the Marines too. We already have an Army and the grunt work can just be combined as well! Why do we need two infantries?! And since we have a Navy, let's also roll the Coast Guard up into there. Man, this is awesome! We can save BILLIONS!! Well, hell! In that case, let’s get rid of the Marines too. We already have an Army and the grunt work can just be combined as well! Why do we need two infantries?! And since we have a Navy, let’s also roll the Coast Guard up into there. Man, this is awesome! We can save BILLIONS!!

]]>