Which candidate is friendliest toward CAP?

[♠SARKID♠]

The content of this post does not necessarily reflect views/opinions of the poster, and is the sole property of a different CAP member.
So for the love of God, don't shoot the messenger on this one.

Somebody brought up some interesting points about McCain moving us to the DoD.

1) We'd have our own funding
2) We'd have our own joint chief
3) We'd be in charge of ourselves, and wouldn't have to have everything approved by a restrictive governing body.

Not shooting at you, SARKID, but...

I guess I don't understand what you're saying.  Could you give me some more detail?

Okay, I'm going to move this to a new thread on the subject.

[afgeo4]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I feel the issue of Sen. McCain is completely misunderstood. What you're looking at is a document that is quite valid in its points. The military requested funding from the senate. That budget was full of pork barrel stuff. Don't you dare for one second think that the way to figure out if the person is friendly to CAP is by seeing if he'll agree to throw money away in random quantities on random projects. The issue is... is this the right way to spend money at the right time? Look at all the other proposals on that table. Think if they make so much sense... especially in light of what happened the year after that. It is his JOB as a senator to keep expenditures down so they can keep taxes down. He was and is doing that job well.

I believe he is the only friend out of the current candidates that CAP has. He was a Naval Aviator and is still a pilot. He understands the value of cadet programs as he was a midshipman once himself. He understands the value of Aerospace Ed and furthering the US reach of air and space power and knowledge. He also understands the missions we fulfill. Given the situation in 2000, I too may have thought that CAP would be better off under the DOT given its mission. Perhaps it may have a larger reach, a bigger budget, increased autonomy, increased awareness and all the wonderful things that come with that.

[DNall]

All that happened in the late 90s, well before the changes in 2000. Sen McCain is not hostile toward CAP.

CAP is expensive to operate & administer. A whole lot of that cost is born by the AF outside CAP's budget. What Sen McCain sought to do was make the mil more efficient by moving that administrative cost from DoD to DoT, but not giving DoT any extra money to deal with it or taking any money away from the AF because of it. The motivation of that proposal had nothing to do with CAP itself.

However, you can look at the details of that proposal & clearly see that a lot of thought went into it. That seems to indicate someone that does understand the value of CAP. Moving the org over to put it on par w/ USCG (albeit with no additional funding) would be a significant thing.

I personally did not at the time support that proposal, and I still don't, but it'd gone through, CAP would be a whole heck of a lot stronger & more significant than it is right now. I do want to see CAP reach those heights, but I'd like to see that happen through our association with the AF by moving more fully into their total force concept of operations.

[Dragoon]

That was my read on it as well.  Sen McCain's job was to take care of DoD - which was short of funds.  Even if you assume every CAP-USAF dollar is spent on SAR or recruiting new airmen (and they ain't), you have to weigh that against paying airmen and building planes.  Tough calls. 

I think he saw CAP as an ES organization and (rightly) asked "why is USAF looking for cessnas?  Shouldn't that be a DOT function?"

I may (or may not) agree with every decision, but I sleep better at night when I know folks are trying to get the maximum deterrence "bang" for my tax "buck." 

[afgeo4]

All that happened in the late 90s, well before the changes in 2000. Sen McCain is not hostile toward CAP.

CAP is expensive to operate & administer. A whole lot of that cost is born by the AF outside CAP's budget. What Sen McCain sought to do was make the mil more efficient by moving that administrative cost from DoD to DoT, but not giving DoT any extra money to deal with it or taking any money away from the AF because of it. The motivation of that proposal had nothing to do with CAP itself.

However, you can look at the details of that proposal & clearly see that a lot of thought went into it. That seems to indicate someone that does understand the value of CAP. Moving the org over to put it on par w/ USCG (albeit with no additional funding) would be a significant thing.

I personally did not at the time support that proposal, and I still don't, but it'd gone through, CAP would be a whole heck of a lot stronger & more significant than it is right now. I do want to see CAP reach those heights, but I'd like to see that happen through our association with the AF by moving more fully into their total force concept of operations.

If Russia has its way we'll be back in a cold war soon enough and then the USAF will have the gigantic budget it once had and maybe CAP will come along with it.

[Cecil DP]

If Russia has its way we'll be back in a cold war soon enough and then the USAF will have the gigantic budget it once had and maybe CAP will come along with it.

If there is another cold war, we'll still be the red headed stepchild.  We're be told that the money, facilities, or whatever is being used for USAF missions. In peacetime, it's because there was a cutback of funds. 

Tags - MIKE

[DNall]

CAP will always be funded according to its real world importance. If you want more money, you apply exceptional ldrshp, and exceptional reorg & mgmt to do more with what you have. Then it'll move forward incrementally.

[Johnny Yuma]

Great point.....Sen Harkin is one of the biggest supporters of CAP in Congress.

I was wondering if there is a speech or documented source of the Speaker of the House saying those things about CAP?

It was in a Sunday AM talk show, and she was defending the San Francisco decision to ban JROTC from the schools.  She did not name CAP specifically, but said "Both the Army and the Air Force have programs to indoctrinate children as young as 12 into the military."  I got the message.

Eh, she could be just talking about AJROTC and AFJROTC, not CAP in particular. CAP has more scope then just the cadet program, which, at least somewhat, exempts us from that statement.

I'm waiting for the day San Francisco tries to cecede.

Trust me, the antiwar movement hates anything in a uniform. After having to work with a bunch of them when i lived near the University of Kansas I learned the following from them.

In their warped logic:

The military is there to kill innocent civilians.

The police is there to violate our civil rights and put everyone in prison.

Firefighters are there to suppress freedom of expression when they and minorities decide to express themselves by burning buildings to the ground when they riot.

Any program that supports youth must involve giving away money or stuff.

Any program that involves uniforms and structure is repressive.


Right now, the way it's lining out, I don't see it any difference in any of the candidates except Romney and he's starting to trail off.

[flyguy06]

Great point.....Sen Harkin is one of the biggest supporters of CAP in Congress.

I was wondering if there is a speech or documented source of the Speaker of the House saying those things about CAP?

It was in a Sunday AM talk show, and she was defending the San Francisco decision to ban JROTC from the schools.  She did not name CAP specifically, but said "Both the Army and the Air Force have programs to indoctrinate children as young as 12 into the military."  I got the message.

Eh, she could be just talking about AJROTC and AFJROTC, not CAP in particular. CAP has more scope then just the cadet program, which, at least somewhat, exempts us from that statement.

I'm waiting for the day San Francisco tries to cecede.

Trust me, the antiwar movement hates anything in a uniform. After having to work with a bunch of them when i lived near the University of Kansas I learned the following from them.

In their warped logic:

The military is there to kill innocent civilians.

The police is there to violate our civil rights and put everyone in prison.

Firefighters are there to suppress freedom of expression when they and minorities decide to express themselves by burning buildings to the ground when they riot.

Any program that supports youth must involve giving away money or stuff.

Any program that involves uniforms and structure is repressive.


Right now, the way it's lining out, I don't see it any difference in any of the candidates except Romney and he's starting to trail off.

This is NOT a true statement, and I dont mean to get political but.........

I am anti war and I love the military. I hate it when people say things like that. "Antiwar people hate the military" First of all, who is prowar?  Why would you not be antiwar? I have been to war. I have seen my friends die. I didnt like it, so yes, I am anti war. But that doesnt mean I hate the military. I love serving my country. I dont want to see my soldiers or anyone wearing a green uniform get killed. So, yes, I am antiwar. I am antiwar because I love my fellow soldier, and marine.

I think its irrisponsible to make such a statement and group people that are opposed to war. If you have ever been to war, you'd be opposed to it as well. Its easy to watch war on TV and make judgements of what YOU think is right or wrong. But try being overthere and going out the wire daily, not knowing if you're comming back or not. Thats not a good feeling and when you have have it for 365 days, it doesnt make you really be prowar.

I have been serving my country proudly for 19 years. I enjoy it. I enjoy the challenege. I enjoy mentoring young people. Thank you.

[Johnny Yuma]

flyguy,

There is a huge, huge difference in being antiwar and the Antiwar movement. There is an even bigger difference between being anti Iraq war and the Antiwar movement.

I know folks who are liberals who opposes invading Iraq, I know Conservatives who were, too. I've yet to meet a vet, specifically a combat vet, who was blindly pro-war.

The Antiwar movement has been here long before the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. The Antiwar movement is firmly entrenched in the Peace and Social Justice movement which is a nice, flowery way of say radical far left.

In their warped logic of the antiwar/ social justice movement, no war is worth fighting. Hitler could have been taken down through peaceable protest. Spending money on defense takes food from the poor. The military does nothing but teach people to kill. Any group that put kids in uniforms and gives them any military training is indoctrinating them to kill. If some country or group attacks us as either a country or even on the street it's because we must have wrongly offended them. Crime and criminal acts are cries for help, criminals are to be treated as tortured souls in need of mental help and social change.

The beliefs of these folks are WAAY OUT on the outer fringe of mainstream society.

Unfortunately, the San Fran area is full of these types and Nancy Pelosi supports their Moonbat ideals.

[mikeylikey]

 Most everyone in uniform (to include me) is ANTI-WAR.  War is (and should be) the last resort of any civilization.  I may wear a uniform, and I may train to go to war, but that is the very last thing I or anyone else in the military ever want to do.  And those that join the military "because they love war, and can't wait to see combat", in my opinion, should never ever have been let in.  

QUESTION......why does everything on this forum seem to turn into a NAZI/HITLER reference?  I can accept everything turning into uniform threads, but seriously, why bring the other things into a perfectly good debate here?

Back to topic, I feel that none of the candidates will be strong supporters of CAP.

[flyguy06]

flyguy,

There is a huge, huge difference in being antiwar and the Antiwar movement. There is an even bigger difference between being anti Iraq war and the Antiwar movement.

I know folks who are liberals who opposes invading Iraq, I know Conservatives who were, too. I've yet to meet a vet, specifically a combat vet, who was blindly pro-war.

The Antiwar movement has been here long before the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. The Antiwar movement is firmly entrenched in the Peace and Social Justice movement which is a nice, flowery way of say radical far left.

In their warped logic of the antiwar/ social justice movement, no war is worth fighting. Hitler could have been taken down through peaceable protest. Spending money on defense takes food from the poor. The military does nothing but teach people to kill. Any group that put kids in uniforms and gives them any military training is indoctrinating them to kill. If some country or group attacks us as either a country or even on the street it's because we must have wrongly offended them. Crime and criminal acts are cries for help, criminals are to be treated as tortured souls in need of mental help and social change.

The beliefs of these folks are WAAY OUT on the outer fringe of mainstream society.

Unfortunately, the San Fran area is full of these types and Nancy Pelosi supports their Moonbat ideals.

So, wanting social justice and peace is a radical thought?

[flyguy06]

 Most everyone in uniform (to include me) is ANTI-WAR.  War is (and should be) the last resort of any civilization.  I may wear a uniform, and I may train to go to war, but that is the very last thing I or anyone else in the military ever want to do.  And those that join the military "because they love war, and can't wait to see combat", in my opinion, should never ever have been let in.  

Well said Mikey

[Johnny Yuma]

So, wanting social justice and peace is a radical thought?

No, but their logic and methods they want to achieve it is.

[JohnKachenmeister]

flyguy,

There is a huge, huge difference in being antiwar and the Antiwar movement. There is an even bigger difference between being anti Iraq war and the Antiwar movement.

I know folks who are liberals who opposes invading Iraq, I know Conservatives who were, too. I've yet to meet a vet, specifically a combat vet, who was blindly pro-war.

The Antiwar movement has been here long before the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. The Antiwar movement is firmly entrenched in the Peace and Social Justice movement which is a nice, flowery way of say radical far left.

In their warped logic of the antiwar/ social justice movement, no war is worth fighting. Hitler could have been taken down through peaceable protest. Spending money on defense takes food from the poor. The military does nothing but teach people to kill. Any group that put kids in uniforms and gives them any military training is indoctrinating them to kill. If some country or group attacks us as either a country or even on the street it's because we must have wrongly offended them. Crime and criminal acts are cries for help, criminals are to be treated as tortured souls in need of mental help and social change.

The beliefs of these folks are WAAY OUT on the outer fringe of mainstream society.

Unfortunately, the San Fran area is full of these types and Nancy Pelosi supports their Moonbat ideals.

Gotta go with Johnny on this one.

The rat bastards in the radical left were the ones who spit at me (not on me, but the hocker hit the bus window when we drove through a protest outside Travis AFB in 1970) when I came back from Vietnam.  Peace and justice are great ideas, but they can only be secured when good men are ready and able to use force to protect them.  That's why we have cops and soldiers.

(The following is an obligatory comment about Hitler and Nazis to satisfy Mikey):

They adopt the same propaganda tactics, the so-called "Big Lie Technique" to convert people to their cause... tell a big enough lie often enough it becomes accepted as the truth.  

(This concludes the obligatory comment about Hitler and Nazis.  Thank you for your time and attention.)

[Johnny Yuma]

Most everyone in uniform (to include me) is ANTI-WAR.  War is (and should be) the last resort of any civilization.  I may wear a uniform, and I may train to go to war, but that is the very last thing I or anyone else in the military ever want to do.  And those that join the military "because they love war, and can't wait to see combat", in my opinion, should never ever have been let in. 

QUESTION......why does everything on this forum seem to turn into a NAZI/HITLER reference?  I can accept everything turning into uniform threads, but seriously, why bring the other things into a perfectly good debate here?

Back to topic, I feel that none of the candidates will be strong supporters of CAP.

Re-read my last post. I believe I made your first point. War in every instance is the final option and anyone who thinks it should be the first is off their rocker.

Your second point: HUH???

The Hitler reference was made as an example of a war that history has justified. He was a government head who had to be taken out by force to stop entire races of people from slaughter.

My comments were about a fringe section of society that is pretending to represent everyone who opposes the Iraq war. This fringe section hates anything related to the military, JROTC, Boy Scouts AND CAP. Take a trip over to ANSWER's website, or read objector.org's newsletter and see if you think these folks would support CAP or represent your view of the military, the war or life in general!

Who's friendliest to CAP? McCain's proven not to be and the Democrat party is catering to the far left radical fringe of its party right now. Not a bright picture.

[pixelwonk]

too little too late.