Lawman

Good point. And Article 4 of the Constitution provides for that process though like creating an amendment or ratifying a state it is incredibly difficult. That is probably the reason it hasnt happened since 1863 and only happend three times before that. Overtorque, I used Texas as an example because everybody who has ever met "that Texan" can recall some level of conversation about "We can leave, they taught me that in Texas History." Honestly as vocal as Texans are though after dealing with Native Hawaiian on how they view their states ownership you guys have a long way to go to hit that level. Helodude, here is an excerpt from the opinion of Texas v White (apology for the Bolding, I copy pasted it) The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [74 U.S. 700, 725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to ‘be perpetual.‘ And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained ‘to form a more perfect Union.’ It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? While Madison and Jefferson did in fact say those things they were also under the initial formation of a country that had never existed in such a likeness before. It was also under the Articles of Confederation and the idea that Slavery was not in contention for the right of all men to be equal, so yes things change. Also Jefferson finishes that quote with "I would rather the States should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture." Meaning its not a statement as to the legality of secession its a statement of him not believing in taking up arms to preserve the greater Union. Also its important to note the language used in the creation of states from Ohio afterward. These were the first states to literally be carved out of Territory by their enabling acts passed by the US Congress. That act was the Federal governments endorsement for the State to form a constitution and State legislature allowing adoption of them into the Union and their allegeince to the US Constitution granting them the same rights as previously formed states. Enabled... as in the Power to become a state is a grant by the Federal Government. Hawaii and Texas were slightly different the same way 14-16 were because they had some form of existing government at the time of their admittance but if you read the enabling acts passed for those states, it comes the same way the power to become a state was granted by the Federal Government. Its really simple from the point of view of allegiance. The State, through its formation and ratification as one was adopted in its whole to elevate the greater whole of the United States. No different than a City or County deciding to leave one state for another is illegal (we fought a war for Toledo in Ohio and I dont know why seeing it now) it is an unacceptable loss to the whole and damaging to the citizens of the US for a state to leave without a demonstrated failure by those members to equally support that State under the requirements of the Constitution (hence my military example a post back). They are free states on the grounds that the powers not expressly given to the Federal Government are maintained by the states. They are not Free states in the idea they can come and go as they please without the grant of the Federal Government.

Side note... We were pulling old stored crap out of the basement of the bowling alley at Illeshiem several years ago and we found a lot of that stuff buried in boxes. Guess we shouldnt have thrown it out.

People have made that argument in regards to taxes, and it has repeatedly been found to not be within the protections provided under the 9th and 10th Amendments which is the basis for the argument in the first place. The same could be said for the idea that somehow a bunch of people effectively voted for us hundreds of years removed from any of us on our consent to be citizens of the United States. Effectively you are born a citizen of the US by default where in the other approach would be to allow people to chose to become citizens through some oath of allegiance (wait I think I said that every day in grade school...) upon reaching the age of consent at 18. We do maintain the individual right to give up your citizenship, we do not maintain the right of the state to do so. Like I said there would be some argument for the idea of a legal secession provided that the Federal Government was complicit in its requirements of the Constitution. If for instance the Federal Government refused to protect the State of Florida or Arizona from a military Invasion of a foreign military power than that state would have an argument that it was abandoned to its own sovereignty. But simply deciding by popular opinion "we dont like this so we are out" isnt a protected right.

Thats what I get for typing on an Ipad... We are totally going down this rabbit hole arent we.... Look Illegally choosing to leave a body you had to be ratified in as a member of is not allowed under the constitution. What level does soverignty exist at. The city? The county? the State? Every single one of those levels has in some way shape or form attempted to leave the greater whole of whatever Union it was a part of. Staten Island tried to leave New York.... Should that have been legal if it simply didnt want to be part of it anymore? The Nation of the United States is what is recognized at a sovereign level, not the state. Thats the same reason states are not allowed to ratify their own treaties with foreign powers. So yes a state that made the decision to become part of the United States doesnt simply get to say "fuck this Im out." States are ratified into the Union, which by doing so do not so much voluntarily choose to be part of as swear allegiance too. At what level to oaths not mean anything if a state chose to affirm its self to the US constitution. Short of the Federal Government not living up to its requirements under the US Constitution and breaking its end of the contract, no the states do not have a right to simply chose to leave when they dont like the systems they swore allegiance too.

Actually no. Texas argued that it wasn't responsible for war debt accumulated by the confederate government because that government was illegal. The USSC found for Texas in the matter based on previous codified standards, 1 being it was implicitly stated in the original articles of confederation that a state could not leave the union and also that the constitution didn't explicitly overturn that nor did it provide for any sort of breaking up of states after their admittance from either territory or foreign state status (like making Cali 2 states for example). There were dissenting opinions on the bench however. Its just important to note that in the wake of a period defined by the idea of state sovereignty within the union a group of individuals who's job it is to interpret the constitution found that succession was not a right. Compare that to todays highly centralized government, no way in hell is that idea making it any further than some grass roots rally in Texas or Hawaii.

You can thank the eco lobby for slowing the adoption of high efficiency diesel in America. PR campaigns on how diesel is dirty or forcing different emission requirements closing off huge swaths of market (IE California). We are easily a decade behind the power curve but thanks to eco requirements the wide field of Asian and Euro market Diesel vehicles including the ones of US manufacture. Whats funny is all the PR on diesel being bad is now coming back to bite them because its the only way for manufactures to meet the ever increasing average mileage requirement while keeping Americans in the larger Cars/SUVs they are accustomed too. They thought they could starve out that market for small hybrid/electric vehicles.

We had some people try that a few decades back... didn't work out so well. While its opening a can of worms that would need its own thread, no US state is leaving the union. For all the blustering and bragging Texans do about how its in their states constitution it doesn't matter (not to mention that it isnt actually there). First, the "Supremacy Claus" (Article 4) of the constitution states you can write whatever you want but if it doesnt align with the US constitution it is null and void. Second, and more to the point Texas V White settled the legality of Succession, our US constitution does not allow for states to secede from the Union. Short of open rebellion nobody is going to go out and form a new country. Sidenote: Polls on the news are gonna be too close to call on Scotland. Im really curious to see if this does happen and they do split what kind of timelines and adjustment periods they set themselves. Curious to see how many of their voters are in that "Change!" mode and not looking at the long game, ala the Post McCain/Obama Southpark Episode.

The multi link rear goes a long way to improving the truck ride. However, it still maintains as one of the best towing trucks in any of its available weight classes despite the old attitude that you need a solid axel and leaf springs to do it. I'd buy an Eco diesel ram in a heart beat if I wasn't already sitting in two paid off cars. That Fiat diesel has been on the market for over a decade and well proven, combined with an 8 speed tranny you have a sub 10k towing half ton that gets high twenties on the highway.

I dont doubt there are elements in their government that view this threat in Syria/Iraq to be a real problem that effects them. But at the same time I dont think its politically acceptable for them with the general population or at least a good portion of that population who would be more than just "against" our presence conducting strikes down into Iraq and Syria. Airlift or support aid might be one of those semantic sells we can pull off like "these dont drop bombs therefor they arent combat ops," or something of that nature. Still, not a great start out of the gate when the most immediate neighbor tells us publicly to F off.... again.

So much for that advantage.... https://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/2014/09/11/Turkey-refuses-U-S-permission-for-combat-missions-against-ISIS-.html Echos of 2003 anyone?

Yet another reason for them to remain my favorite go to airline.

So if I follow what your saying we took a field with probably as much of a niche technical requirement in expertise as say the medical group and then essentially stopped tracking who went there? So like if we just let any LtCOL run the base hospital instead of putting the people with the knowledge to actually run it there and keeping them there. Brilliant idea.... Between stuff like this and partnership exercises with our allies I'm starting to think our success in combat isn't because we are so much better at everything, it's that they have somehow found a way to suck worse at it.

So are you saying its worse than my shitty analogy? Well that explains how we spend 600 million dollars on a website for healthcare and it doesnt work....

I cant sign on to Web.mail.mil from a NIPR computer in our CP because it blocks the site.... Is it really a surprise to anyone we keep fucking this stuff away. Those people that were teenagers creating terrible websites on geocities and tripod in the early dialup internet days.... They work for the government now.

There's that damn crew proficiency thing that seems to bite us in the ass in so many mission sets (like the one that started this read). I was briefed on not one but two excaliburs that didn't land where they were supposed too... Or anywhere else observed. If I dropped something and didn't record where it went I'd probably go to jail with stuff the way it is now. You wanna see scary bad, Naval gunfire demos are terrifying. I've seen very accurate shooting especially with the lighter stuff (60,81 mortars etc) but that's just because they get to actually shoot more. Still I'm not gonna bet on Jib having bad aim and my body armor plates, I'm getting behind cover. Same principle here, know where the friendlies are is as much the of that JTAC or Plt Ldr on the ground as it is the bomber or fighter cleared IN. Kstate, his grid or the grid of a friendly element he didn't have the SA on, it's still a mistake that started with him. I don't know how many times I've asked "do you have dismounts" only to be told no and then later find guys walking around in body armor. Makes me want to strangle a JTAC or RTO. It's the job to know where the hell these people are. And it's their job to keep you informed of where they are.

While true your still betting on them missing. I understand plenty the lethality difference having also shot and planned fires but that's like saying I'd rather get shot with a .38 in the leg vs a .44 in the stomach. Both can kill you, and it was you that put your body in front of the gun to begin with. Is an M777 battery as likely for a first round 1 time F up, no but it could very easily end that way with MLRS or other indirect on coordinate no vis to second guess systems we have. That was my point the system only works if it gets all the right information. When this incident happened our CCT that's with us just could not figure out how you could pass your own position as the target because of his own self imposed safeties. He had a few specific rituals he would do because this is exactly what he feared most.

No I'm saying our gunners perspective is akin more to being the dude in the back of a high altitude aircraft using a sensor and a bomb than to being in your position of out the window forward ordnance employment. Our pilot puts the aircraft in position for weapons release... That's about it. Those wonderful history channel moments where they talk about the helmet with and pointing where you are looking... That's an old TTP for self defense in a battle position so you can smoke a dude with an RPG that pops out underneath you, that's not how we shoot. Remember outside of a rocket shot the guy driving our aircraft isn't doing any of the weapons release. We differ from the two seat Driver/WSO model in that regard. The guy who is pulling e trigger and driving the fight, isn't looking outside. That means rounds are coming out of that gun or missiles off the rails at the trust that what your gunner sees in the sensor is what he is supposed to be shooting at. And we have done it that way since our inception. Weapons off the rail based on what we see in a sight not what we see outside the glass with our eyes. We shoot heads down because our sensor lends more SA than looking out the window from our perspective of the battle. Despite the fact that it can't see IR pointer/beacon/etc and there is little to no good way to back it up with goggles because FLIR is both our targeting and primary flying NVD. And yes porkchop if you feed your position as the target grid on an artillery call for fire your only hope is that they miss what they are aiming at, because that's where the rounds are going. Indirect fire can't confirm you are or aren't where you say you are any better than a bomber at altitude. People have been killed that way before and will undoubtedly be killed that way again.

Not only that. This idea that you need to look out the window is... Well funny from my perspective. We don't shoot visually. At all. Everything on the aircraft is driven around looking through that sensor as a gunner and no the guy driving you around in back doesn't have the SA or the visibility to look out and confirm where your rounds are going to go. We have the advantage of a wingman with their own sensor true but using NVGs from the cockpit to see a target from the combination of my altitude and cockpit visibility are about impossible so it isn't done. We have more in common with the Strike Eagle in that regard than we do with something like a Viper or Hawg. And while it's not a pass for the Bone guys that the JTAC miffed the grid, if he had done the same thing with artillery you would have had the same effect. I agree with the earlier post... Build a hundred bridges nobody cares....

They have been yelling at PM for years to get that capability into the EM-TADS so we can finally see all the nifty IR shit everybody else uses. Supposed to happen in 2018.... Maybe....

You have to understand the Army mindset to this. I can have artillery dropped anywhere on the map with nothing more than "hey you this is me, target at grid XY12345678. Request blank on my command." Why should 4 extra lines not result in the same level of capability. The Army views you as a bigger more powerful form of artillery, not a maneuver platform so you put iron where you are told, when you are told. Like I said, just the Army mindset. Is it perfect, no but it is the level of simplicity needed when you are talking about people that are operating on a much different picture than yours as far as a battlefield chess board. and seriously.... Are guys gonna start a pissing contest on miss ID of a target that the JTAC failed to properly pass by all accounts on B1. Because the records of the A-10 communities frat events speaks against at. having Mark 1 eye ball at low altitude hasn't stopped some of the more public "oh shit" incidents in daylight no less that were often attributed to JTAC procedural errors, but people seem to be quick to call out bone for living life at altitude through a sniper pod and not recognizing/second guessing the JTAC.

Insha'Allah..... The Kuwaiti/Saudi students that roll through the 64 course are terrifying.

And yet they still execute it. Make no mistake, Honor Killings... Female Circumcision.... These acts happen despite the social disincentive of it being illegal. Take a look at the albeit anecdotal evidence from our friends over in Europe.... the people executing these acts and this drive to change us have no give a shit whether or not you accept the idea or not. They are using our inability to confront them directly due to our overwhelming drive to be politically correct like its the way to sneak under the radar until they get their way through a growing majority. There are places in England which have de facto Sharia law... where in any level of western society is something like that ok .... not a damn place. But if you call it as you see it your to busy defending yourself from the people quick to call you out as a racist to pay any attention to the real issue... that somebody is cutting of women's who-ha parts or that they are murdering daughters for blowing a white guy in college because of some 12th century honor code. Immigration is a fine thing, it allows a culture to not remain stagnant... but at the same time to sit around and try and defend their beliefs as a viable and compatible way of life is just a joke. These people are ignorant scum, no different than a bunch of white people who think we should burn a woman as a witch after she doesn't sink in the river quickly enough.

Thats a bit of a red herring argument to make when the idea being pushed here is Political Insubordination to actions viewed as non constitutional because they take place where "we have no business." Thats the problem with the Oath Keeper argument, nobody in the military is condoning the idea of a President declaring themselves king or violating Posse Commitatus in order to impose some sort of political agenda of a tyrant on the citizens you swore to protect. But the Oath Keepers seem to pervert that into "we should refuse any order that doesnt abide our narrow and specific interpretation of executive powers." The Authorization to use force was approved by congress, and acted on by the executive branch which is exactly the way the use of our military was designed from the get go. The question posed up was should Military Officers be questioning authority publicly and vocally thereby making themselves part of the political sphere of decision making as to whether or not we should go do something, not what will we do when asked to go do something. Absolutely not. No different than it is completely inappropriate to stand up and tell the boss "Hey I dont agree with ____ and you should change your mind and if you dont Im not carrying out your order" in front of your subordinates. There is a difference between standing up as the final back stop between some obviously illegal activity (anybody get ordered to drop a bomb on protestors?) and putting on your uniform to lend credibility to your argument of "I dont like this guys decision to go into country X, and I think its wrong so Im saying something (as a member of the military)." You have the right to disagree with whatever you like as a citizen, when you put on the uniform those rights and responsibilities change.

Thats about what I figured.... Anybody in the room who doesnt see your view point obviously isnt as smart as you... thats exactly how your opinion comes off in these threads. Like every action is a narrative and your the guy that can see through it all. You repeatedly make comments along the lines of us being Mercenaries or unwilling accomplices to the global capitalist Machine of the 1% or something of that nature... So why the hell are you still here after you've seen the truth from the inside. Do you think that your service is the inside route to convince everybody that what we are doing is wrong? If your so bound and determined if there is some sort of moral high ground that you need to stand up on to challenge this status quo what are you doing wasting your time here? You make the statement like its somehow our job to stand up to the leadership to challenge the civil authority.... Thats the kind of shit you see in backward ass South American countries where the Military decides "F this guy we know better." A thorough understanding of the constitution would let you understand that just about everybody with the exception of Ron Paul understands that an Authorization to use Force (which was given for our little romp in Iraq) carries the same standing as a Declaration of War, the title is just more politically palatable in todays day and age. No different than its the Department of Defense but we have a hell of a lot of Offensive Firepower when it used to be the War Department. Words change, meanings are the same. What are we supposed to do the day that the people in charge tell you drop that weapon on XXX, not fly? Go on camera in your uniform like those asshats on Facebook and let yourself become a tool in another nation/force/regimes propaganda? Its the military, we are the ultimate force behind the political will of our nation. We are not beholden to ourselves and our decisions on how we should be doing things beyond executing a policy. If thats your attitude your in the same boat as Caesar. Your voice in the discussion is your vote, not your uniform. And your moral objection to a nation acting within its interests is just terrifyingly short sighted. Nationalism is not a goal I would support, but to be so naive to think that if we just take some sort of moral high ground and "let it be" that everything will work out is ridiculous. Stalin didnt respond to concessions he claimed half of Europe and would have taken all of it if we hadnt had tanks in the way. Putin has effectively annexed a chunk of Ukraine and the show isnt over while we have said its not our problem. What does that tell Lithuania or Finland when our national interest is to just wish real hard that everybody understands being nice to one another is the right thing to do. National prestige, power, influence, whatever you want to call it does not exist in a vacuum. Just because we vote ourselves out of the game doesnt mean we win because everybody else will keep playing. Do you think we should just show the world that we are out of the game? Should we have let Kuwait be annexed because hey bro not my problem? Do you think China is just going to stop trying to become the big player in Asia if we tell everybody over there "we are out guys, handle your business."

Im just curious because your posts all show a trend of an isolationist "this isnt our business and its amoral to try and push our national interests on anyone anywhere," attitude.... Why are you in the military? Are you even in the military? Do your bro's in the unit or does your chain of command understand that you seem to be morally apposed to any and all actions that the rest of us carry out willingly? Seriously, any time there is a thread about any kind of military action your quick to come in here and imply that we are all unknowing or ignorant conspirators in some sort of criminal/immoral activity. Im curious if and why you would continue to serve in such an organization.