The Instigator
the_conservative
Pro (for)
Losing
31 Points
The Contender
Patrick_Henry
Con (against)
Winning
57 Points

The Air Force should be disbanded.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,095 times Debate No: 2719
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (20)

 

the_conservative

Pro

I think that the United States Air Force is unnecessary.

In the post 9/11 days counterterrorism missions are more effectively done on ground then on air. Sure you have piolts that can take down buildings and such as that, but that kind of operation would be better handled by the NAVY or ARMY.

The Marine Corps has more planes in it's air wing than the whole U.S. Air Force, the NAVY has more planes, and so does the ARMY. Should'nt it be that the Air Force has more planes than any branch seeing that they are the "Air Force"?

But the Air Force wants more than a few new aircraft. The Service is asking for $116 million, to pay for 100,000 new handguns with improved ergonomic design and higher caliber effectiveness; $13 million in "dorm furnishings"; $367 million, to buy M-4 rifles; and $276 million for "critical base services," like "base shuttle service, dining hall service hours, fitness/recreation programs, etc. Lack of funding impacts the entire base community and, specifically, junior Airmen."

The Marine corps only makes up 3% of our national budget and the Airforce wants another 18 billion added on to their $144,000,000,000.

If you want to fly, join the Navy or the Marines.
Patrick_Henry

Con

While I admire that your argument is based off of funding, I think your criticism of the Air Force come from ignorance as to what the tens of billions of dollars pays for.

To start with, I had dinner with a Colonel Otero in the fall of 2006. Colonel Otero, a member of the Air Force, graduate of Iowa State University's ROTC program, and student of the Air War College, was the commander of the Special Forces under Tommy Franks in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Special Forces is made up of all kinds of personnel, and many of them come from the air force. Given the nature of many Special Forces, or black op missions, much of the funding for them comes from the air force as they often find themselves supplying air cover, air transportation, and supply while also supporting in a recon capacity. When we went into Afghanistan, the entire United States Armed forces had exactly two unmanned aerial vehicles. The Air Force, in part because of the recognized value of a UAV, and in part because an overall strategic understanding provided by leadership which must be concerned by both logistics and a complete strategic understanding of the entire theater, the Air Force was the only service interested in developing the UAV. To date, every UAV produced is funded by the Air Force, and operated by the Air Force, yet serves every trooper that is on the ground, whether they are soldiers, marines, sailors or airmen.

Our Military's mission is not solely counter terrorism. And to reduce our military to that capacity would be a huge mistake, especially when just about every mission carried out by the military has little or nothing to do with "counter terrorism", but I suppose since people have consented to call this the "war on terror", its easy to believe that every mission is counter terrorism. According to your profile, you support a "war with Iran", however seldom do people define what they mean by war. In every plan for Iran, the Air Force represents a tremendously important role. Especially given the fact that those plans rely on air sport, and pulling off at least a couple thousand sorties in the first three days. Many of which will have to be conducted by heavy bombs which other branches do not maintain.

For the record, though, the United States Air Force has many individuals on the ground in Iraq serving in both advance supply capacities, and direct support capacities. The entire armed forces has been so thinly stressed by this war, and the fact that the number of active duty divisions was reduced by George Bush in the early days of his presidency, that every branch is contributing beyond their original mission statements in an effort to try to make up for the short comings of poor planning by the executive branch. The command of the Iraq Theater actually belongs to a Navy Admiral, and there has been a spirit of cooperation from all the military branches, which the commander of the United States Army who is new to the theater keeps attempting to ignore, which is partially why said Admiral referred to him as a Kiss A$$.
http://ipsnews.net...

While the Marine Corps might have their own wing of fighters, I can promise you that when the Navy talks about how many fighters that they have, they're including the numbers of Marine fighters. The Marine Corps receives a majority of its funding from the Department of the Navy, and not from a specific congressional allocation.

The Marine Corps and Navy also do not invest in heavy bombing capacities, nor do they invest in the military's space program. Yes, the Military has a space program that is almost completely funded by the United States Air Force. The Air Force must be prepared for missions that the United States Army and Navy are not. Also, a majority of the Army's aircraft are support vehicles, and it is a fallacious statement to claim that they have more "Planes", when the United States Army speaks of their total numbers of air craft, they are including non-fixed wing vehicles, such as helicopters. The navy also operates a large share of helicopters that the United States Air Force usually has nothing to do with.
So, part of the discrepancy you see is because the Air Force has much fewer stealth fighters and stealth bombers because their mission statement requires it, and the Air Force needs fewer stealth fighters than the Army and Navy needs helicopters to maintain their operations.

The Air Force has also provided a brunt of the research behind both the F-22, and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35 representing the future air craft of all branches, even the ones who did not share the expense of the design.

If you want to promise success in our theaters of operation, fund the air force.
Debate Round No. 1
the_conservative

Pro

........The "I" word. I hate when people jsut throw that around. It means "not knowing" in some references but it can also be translated into our English word of "ignore".

Good for you for having a meal with this "Colonel Otero". Yes the Special Forces are made up of most services.....but...... okay. See your things on "air cover" and "transportation" are rarely MOST of the USAF. The majority of Air Support on the battleground does not come from the Air Force. Here is an example, Say a convoy is ambushed far outside of base. They need air support. Here is what they do. "WE need support at these coordinates (45.)(78.0)etc... so they call in the nearest Blackhawk (ARMY) or the nearest gunship.plane with support capapbilities mostly attack choppers or A10 Warthogs flown by the USMC. The nearest Air Force bases are usually too far away to get there in time for support quick enough during an ambush.

Yeah the Air Force sends over supplies from this country and others but, it mine as well be the ARMY. Once they arrive in Iraq guess who is in charge of getting the supplies? hahahah not the Air Force. The NG usually gets stuck with that or the ARMY.

The Air Force was created in 1947. It used to be the Army Air Force who flew. The NAVY flew in the Pacific. That right there shows that we dont need a whole longer department taht costs the most when it can just join up with the army and cut costs tremendously since everyone complains about our "National Debt"

Ahhhh im glad you mentioned the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, or the UAV. The Army can do it. Thats all that needs to be said. They can handle it. They have the time. They have the training and technology.

Anyways the Air Force wants more funding to make base more "homie" yeah well tough it out like everyone else. You don't need M4 Rifles. They suck anyways. Sure there may be some on Special Missions but there are not going to be any right on the frontlines. Thats what Marines,Seals, and the Green Berets are for. It's not liek there are going to be that many people using those weapons anyways,they can just use the leftover ones.

Wow. hmmm how is this not a war on terror? What Iraqi battleforce is in Iraq? There certainly is an Iraqi Army but they are on our side. I think there are a group of terrorists called Al-Qaeda dont you? Yeah. So yes these are counterterrorism operations. There will be more...alot more in the future. Maybe you should enlist in the AF?

Thankyou for going to look at my views and telling me what a war is. i know what a war is. Yeah i know what a war with Iran is and i know that air SUPERIORITY would be an effective role. Okay, we already know that by the recent facts show that the AF isnt going to do the majority of the Air Work anyways.

Oh yeah who funds the Air Force? The Government.

Oh and i would like to throw in there that i already knew i was going to lose thsi debate in the first place because people just vote on what they already think. For example if there is a debate between whethere the Red Sox or the Yankees are better...well people are just going to vote for their favorite team no matter what the debate says.The debate could say the Red sox suck and a red sox fan wont even read it because he just vote for the Red sox.....anyways its going to be like that here....if somebody likes the AF there jsut going to vote for them anyways.

Cheers.
Patrick_Henry

Con

Patrick_Henry forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
the_conservative

Pro

From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of tripoli. We will fight our countries battles on the land and air on sea. Firt to fight for right and freedom and to keep our honor clean we are proud to take the title of united states marines.
Patrick_Henry

Con

I usually use it in the terms of not knowing, or uneducated. I typically don't ignore much.

Air support is applied by all branches, in one way or another. In many cases this is done so that the operation can be coordinated by one branch, one division, one battalion, et cetera. This is why we call it the "Airborne Cavalry." Depending on the chief of operations in the mission in which support is being called down, it is just as likely that the gunship, whether fix winged or rotor my respond, or an air force or navy craft in the area may respond. They aren't always scrambled from the hanger or the flight deck, often air support is always in the air, such as when the Air Force was responsible for patrolling the no fly zone in Iraq for more than a decade without the support of the Army.

The Air Force actually has been manning convoys on the ground in Iraq. Update your facts. The Bush Administration reduced the number of standing divisions in the Army before the Iraq episode happened. A lot of the slack has been absorbed by the Marine Corps, and the Air Force. This is done by necessity, so it doesn't help my argument much, but the airmen are on the ground driving around in trucks just like the soldiers and marines.

The Air Force was created in 1947. It used to be the Army Air Force who flew. The NAVY flew in the Pacific. That right there shows that we dont need a whole longer department taht costs the most when it can just join up with the army and cut costs tremendously since everyone complains about our "National Debt"

The Army Air Force was split off from the Army largely due to the fact that there were massive funding battles. Generals are not all united, and often have their own unique ideas or goals. Recombining the Air Force with the Army, to create an Army Air Corps would likely result in money intended to provide fighter air craft, or joint strike air craft being diverted to fit immediate needs in the Army. Such as tiny little details like the fact that nothing destroys a HUMVEE faster than up armoring it, or making it put on tens of thousands of miles a month. So, those will likely need to be replaced very soon, as well as the needed increase in mine resistant up armored vehicles. The Air Corps will be forced to compete with other needs, in a military that is being over funded, yet drastically underfunded in the areas where they actually need to maintain an operational capacity. Senator Biden's plan for a total reform and overhaul of the U.S. military would save about a trillion dollars over the next decade, while strengthening the military, but amazingly he won't be the president thanks to a massive misunderstanding of the U.S. Military.

UAV's should stay with the air force. Period. Sticking them to the army will cause them to be deployed where the Army is deployed. The Air Force strategic operations focus on a wider lens, and it will be easier to send Air Force UAVs to other regions, such as our massive borders that might need to be patrolled over the next several decades. Also, the UAV needs to be concerned with more than just recon, seeing as in the future it will be likely that there will be hunter seeker UAVs.

The Air Force needs weapons. They're trying to replace combat arms that they've maintained for the last two or three decades, the attempt to buy M4s is part of an effort to standardized the ammunition used by the united states military, and I'll be honest, I'm opposed to it. So I agree with you, they don't need M4s, but everyone is going to have M4s, and those weapons do get used. It's also better to have them for when they're needed, lest it will be incredibly bad to discover, "Oh yeah, maybe we should have given them guns and training. That might have helped with that battle."

Al-Qaeda came to Iraq when we did, but they're not the only fighting force that is in the Iraq that is opposed to us. To call this the "war on terror" is a very immature way to describe the battle. Raiding houses, running convoys, and hunting down a local insurgency is not counter terrorism, it's counter revolutionary, and is simply a military operation. Counter terrorism cannot and should not be broadly applied to an entire region or battle field. That attitude will cause a lot of the rules of war to be violated as every civilian becomes a potential terrorist.

To be honest, I'd have to go into the Navy. My personality might work as a navy officer. I'm not enough of a "Kiss A$$" to make it very far in the other branches. However, my attitudes might make me a decent potentate of a ship.

I actually kind of wouldn't mind if you won the debate. My schedule has been totally messed up this weekend, including the fact that I'm sitting next to a slender blond girl who is waiting for me to take her to dinner and a movie, and thus I can't really invest any more time in making this argument =-)

To close, the Air Force is needed simply because to attempt to organize both the goals and priorities of the Air Force and the Army would not be handled very well as people responsible for different goals and priorities go at it behind the scenes for priorities in funding and operational preferences.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Patrick_Henry 9 years ago
Patrick_Henry
I was explaining why I used the word literally.
Posted by the_conservative 9 years ago
the_conservative
what the hell are you talking about all i said was good job and all that
Posted by Patrick_Henry 9 years ago
Patrick_Henry
"Professional" means I get paid, and hold myself to a certain level of ethical behavior and mercenary conduct. I've heard people describe themselves as such without getting paid or you know, being ethical. Just because a candidate pays you to make phone calls doesn't make you a political consultant, or a professional consultant. It doesn't even make you an "organizer." It makes you a phone banker, and many folks getting paid by campaigns don't make the distinction.
Posted by the_conservative 9 years ago
the_conservative
Hey, thanks for debating Patrick. This was a very good debate and i learned alot of things from an experienced debater.
Posted by the_conservative 9 years ago
the_conservative
did you get that? he is LITERALLY
Posted by Patrick_Henry 9 years ago
Patrick_Henry
Honest answer?

I'm literally a professional political consultant, and I own a bar. My brother manages the place, but he had influenza this weekend so I spent Thursday night, Friday night and Saturday night at the bar, and will probably have to go down tonight, too.

Friday was one of the biggest fund raisers for one of the more important counties in my congressional district, so I was there pretty much all day, unexpectedly, dealing with the four candidates, three of whom kind of want to hire me. But, don't worry, I'll get to the third round.
Posted by the_conservative 9 years ago
the_conservative
yeah you were

why isnt ol' pat debating
Posted by SchinkBR 9 years ago
SchinkBR
sorry, I was a bit harsh and immature on my last comment
Posted by the_conservative 9 years ago
the_conservative
wow you stupid idiot. Yeah i know that the Marines are the (mens) department of the NAVY. Your point? Nowhere in here did i ever state that they were not or did i ever show signs of not knowing that fact. READ THINGS CLEARLY. idiot. Do you you guarentee that few mothers and relatives abandon their loved ones? good so do i. I never said they all do or i never said that most of them do what i said is the fact taht many wives have left their husband and took the children when they were overseas. Look it up jerkoff. You obviously know nothing. You should never be allowed to say the word "ignorant" again.
Posted by SchinkBR 9 years ago
SchinkBR
If you are in fact joining the marines, then I must say, you seem fairly ignorant to the fact that, as patrick said, the marines are part of the navy. And I guarntee that very few mothers and relatives abandon soilders.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
the_conservativePatrick_HenryTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by THE_CONSERVATIVE_remix 8 years ago
THE_CONSERVATIVE_remix
the_conservativePatrick_HenryTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 9 years ago
JBlake
the_conservativePatrick_HenryTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by the_conservative 9 years ago
the_conservative
the_conservativePatrick_HenryTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by aaronr8684 9 years ago
aaronr8684
the_conservativePatrick_HenryTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by advidiun 9 years ago
advidiun
the_conservativePatrick_HenryTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ANSmith 9 years ago
ANSmith
the_conservativePatrick_HenryTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JTSmith 9 years ago
JTSmith
the_conservativePatrick_HenryTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Jamesothy 9 years ago
Jamesothy
the_conservativePatrick_HenryTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 9 years ago
Labrat228
the_conservativePatrick_HenryTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70