Pages: 1

 

2006-11-15 11:18:03
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6741|Northern California
Watch this video and tell me if you think the once "military-minded" senator from Arizona has become a warmongering, ignorant tool of the right.  I recall a McCain in times past that referred to the generals on the ground as the ones in charge...though now he's turned into a pure politician (a "suit in washington") who has no idea how to oversight warfare or work with troops.  I see disaster if he were elected president in '08.  I see him firing generals and cabinet members and staff for disagreeing with his policies just like Bush did/does.

What also bugs me is that in this TP article, the poster references this Washington Post article that says we're running low on troops?  2/3rds of our active ARMY are not ready?  And we're the most powerful military in the world?  WTF?  What happened to the 500,000 we sent to free Kuwait in '91?  Are we really spread that thin so we can't send 200,000, or 300,000 soldiers to Iraq (not that they need to be there)?  What exactly are WE relying on in the event of a domestic attack?  We have around 35,000 in Korea as we've had for decades.  I'm sure Germany still has the same count they've had for at least a decade.  Is there a mysterious force of 500,000 hidden in the polar caps or something that can't be used?  Orrrr...has the recruitment goals being met been a lie?

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-11-15 11:21:57)

2006-11-15 12:32:07
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|6972|Eastern PA
Well, legally Abizaid cannot advocate anything that would violate the parameters of policy that civilian leadership sets. If the President says he won't withdraw or deploy more troops, the military must work within those bounds anything otherwise would violate the UCMJ.

McCain of all people should know that. This is just more of the clown show that our government has become.
2006-11-15 13:06:36
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6695|The Land of Scott Walker
Of course McCain fails.  Don't worry, he won't be elected in 08.  I'd vote for Giuliani way before McCain.  The Breck girl, John Edwards has a better chance at that than McCain.

Last edited by Stingray24 (2006-11-15 13:13:15)

2006-11-15 13:20:25
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6792|Texas - Bigger than France

IRONCHEF wrote:

I see disaster if he were elected president in '08.  I see him firing generals and cabinet members and staff for disagreeing with his policies just like Bush did/does.
Bring Rummy Back?
2006-11-15 13:23:27
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6644|The Gem Saloon
maybe no one wants to discuss accurate troop numbers in the open so our enemies dont know what we are workin with.
2006-11-15 13:37:52
<[onex]>Headstone
Member
+102|6952|New York

IRONCHEF wrote:

Watch this video and tell me if you think the once "military-minded" senator from Arizona has become a warmongering, ignorant tool of the right.  I recall a McCain in times past that referred to the generals on the ground as the ones in charge...though now he's turned into a pure politician (a "suit in washington") who has no idea how to oversight warfare or work with troops.  I see disaster if he were elected president in '08.  I see him firing generals and cabinet members and staff for disagreeing with his policies just like Bush did/does.

What also bugs me is that in this TP article, the poster references this Washington Post article that says we're running low on troops?  2/3rds of our active ARMY are not ready?  And we're the most powerful military in the world?  WTF?  What happened to the 500,000 we sent to free Kuwait in '91?  Are we really spread that thin so we can't send 200,000, or 300,000 soldiers to Iraq (not that they need to be there)?  What exactly are WE relying on in the event of a domestic attack?  We have around 35,000 in Korea as we've had for decades.  I'm sure Germany still has the same count they've had for at least a decade.  Is there a mysterious force of 500,000 hidden in the polar caps or something that can't be used?  Orrrr...has the recruitment goals being met been a lie?
Reffere to What San Fran has just done to the military and recruiting. Then sit back and reflect on Who the speaker of the house will be, and then reflect on WHERE she is from and represents. Nuff said. The San Fran school district just voted to Kick the Jr ROTC out of the schools. They are trying to Kick them out of ALL schools. This is what this country is comeing from. FFS They will be phased out of San Fran altogether by next year. Welcome to the new leadership. I hope Bush Vetos every single piece of legislation that &^%$# throws at him.
2006-11-15 13:43:16
King_County_Downy
shitfaced
+2,791|6847|Seattle

Didn't Bill Clinton cut back on all of our military troops?
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
2006-11-15 13:45:59
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6695|The Land of Scott Walker

King_County_Downy wrote:

Didn't Bill Clinton cut back on all of our military troops?
That's a roger.
2006-11-15 13:55:38
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6741|Northern California

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

Reffere to What San Fran has just done to the military and recruiting. Then sit back and reflect on Who the speaker of the house will be, and then reflect on WHERE she is from and represents. Nuff said. The San Fran school district just voted to Kick the Jr ROTC out of the schools. They are trying to Kick them out of ALL schools. This is what this country is comeing from. FFS They will be phased out of San Fran altogether by next year. Welcome to the new leadership. I hope Bush Vetos every single piece of legislation that &^%$# throws at him.
lol, that was a reach.  way to blame the deficiency of the us army (where 2/3rds of the active servicemen/women aren't battle ready) on San Francisco and Pelosi!    Did you even read the article?  or did you just decide to blame Pelosi..someone who won't start lawmaking until JANUARY 2007!  And maybe the jr ROTC issue in SF is what caused two thirds of the active US ARMY from being combat ready.  lol

if you knew what you were talking about, you'd see that bush/cheney have closed more military bases than clinton, that the republican congress had the least supportive troop-related voting record (averaging "D" grades where democrats averaged B+ grades), and oh yeah, in the last 5 years with a 9/11 fresh on everyone's mind, the leadership of this country has failed to build up it's military yet spend hundreds of billions on it (yet the military itself is underequipped).

Surely a "just war" will have people lining up to support it....or maybe all the republicans are chicken hawks?  I've seen the young republican sites for several universities and none of them are encouraging it's members to enlist to fight the war they wish to fight!

But yeah, it's all San Francisco and Nancy Pelosi's fault! lol
2006-11-15 13:59:07
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6644|The Gem Saloon
whoa, northern california. that explains it all.
2006-11-15 14:02:02
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6741|Northern California

Parker wrote:

whoa, northern california. that explains it all.
Uh, explains what?  that I live on the left coast?  that I like expensive real estate, bad traffic, and diversity?  You lost me.
2006-11-15 14:31:26
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6741|Northern California
hehe, no need to. and btw, i appreciate your honesty and tact.   

Now how about your thoughts on the good Senator from Arizona?  Is he worth the 18% (2nd place behind Giuliani) gallup poll voting for a Repbulican nomiation for the '08 presidential contest?

*deleted my post with your reference*

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-11-15 14:32:31)

2006-11-15 15:26:03
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|6972|Eastern PA

Parker wrote:

maybe no one wants to discuss accurate troop numbers in the open so our enemies dont know what we are workin with.
That information is publicly available:
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/200 … 12208.html
2006-11-15 15:29:44
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6644|The Gem Saloon

Masques wrote:

Parker wrote:

maybe no one wants to discuss accurate troop numbers in the open so our enemies dont know what we are workin with.
That information is publicly available:
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/200 … 12208.html
i know that they post those numbers, but im very unsure as to if they are true. example-i dont think it would be a tactically sound idea to announce the real numbers of say our special forces. and if i dont find it a good idea someone high up has thought of it long ago. at least thats what i think, but we can never know for sure. +1 for the link though
2006-11-15 15:34:45
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|6972|Eastern PA

Parker wrote:

Masques wrote:

Parker wrote:

maybe no one wants to discuss accurate troop numbers in the open so our enemies dont know what we are workin with.
That information is publicly available:
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/200 … 12208.html
i know that they post those numbers, but im very unsure as to if they are true. example-i dont think it would be a tactically sound idea to announce the real numbers of say our special forces. and if i dont find it a good idea someone high up has thought of it long ago. at least thats what i think, but we can never know for sure. +1 for the link though
That is probably the case when initially deploying forces, but generally the true numbers (or some close approximation) are made public soon after operations commence.
2006-11-15 15:38:17
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6741|Northern California

Parker wrote:

Masques wrote:

Parker wrote:

maybe no one wants to discuss accurate troop numbers in the open so our enemies dont know what we are workin with.
That information is publicly available:
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/200 … 12208.html
i know that they post those numbers, but im very unsure as to if they are true. example-i dont think it would be a tactically sound idea to announce the real numbers of say our special forces. and if i dont find it a good idea someone high up has thought of it long ago. at least thats what i think, but we can never know for sure. +1 for the link though
There's worse information than troop numbers that enemies and potential enemies can find easily...like watching our soldiers in action to learn their tactics (good conventional attack, shitty guerrilla warfare, for example).  They can also watch discovery channel, history channel, FOX, CNN, and many other very public media that expose things. 

I think the troop count given is probably accurate given the fact that because of the shitty leadership they have and the stop-lossing going on, the abandonment you get when sent home wounded and discharged, and a plethora of other criteria..make it an easy choice to not re-enlist.  What guardsman is going to stay in the guard knowing that his purpose of protecting his state or country domestically was completely removed from him.  But I know, I know..it's Clinton and the Liberal Media's fault for the bad morale among the troops!  lol

EDIT:  found this
Currently, there are 499,000 active duty Army troops, backed up by 700,000 National Guard and Army reservists. That's a third less than when the U.S. fought its last big war in the Persian Gulf, in 1991;
130,000 Army troops are in Iraq. Pentagon officials had hoped to reduce that number, but the ongoing insurgency prevented it; 9,000 Army troops are in Afghanistan; 3,000 help keep the peace in Bosnia, as do 37,000 in South Korea.

So we're not doing very well.  But hey, if we control the skies and the depths of the sea...there's no safe country on this earth..even with Pelosi running congress!

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-11-15 15:43:01)

2006-11-15 15:46:45
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|6972|Eastern PA

IRONCHEF wrote:

the leadership of this country has failed to build up it's military yet spend hundreds of billions on it (yet the military itself is underequipped).
There's a good article in this quarter's Parameters Journal (US Army War College Quarterly) on just this topic (well...not exactly this topic, more on the resistance to adaptation found within the military and the inevitable difficulties that spring forth in Iraq):
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Para … elillo.htm

One analyst even castigated the American way of war as a “Way of Battles.”5 Overcoming this institutional preference for big wars and a preoccupation with high-technology conventional warfare are paramount for ensuring American military readiness in the future.
While I'm sure the explanation that the basic tools of counterinsurgency were ignored due to intransigence on the part of civilian leadership (that much has been proven) it also comes in part due to the over reliance on high-tech solutions to battlefield problems and a flat-out unwillingness to prepare for anything other than a fight against a conventional enemy.
2006-11-15 15:47:31
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6944|San Francisco

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

Reffere to What San Fran has just done to the military and recruiting. Then sit back and reflect on Who the speaker of the house will be, and then reflect on WHERE she is from and represents. Nuff said. The San Fran school district just voted to Kick the Jr ROTC out of the schools. They are trying to Kick them out of ALL schools. This is what this country is comeing from. FFS They will be phased out of San Fran altogether by next year. Welcome to the new leadership. I hope Bush Vetos every single piece of legislation that &^%$# throws at him.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c … mp;sc=1000

Done because of the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" military policies, and that it's half paid for by the public, many of us who do not support the methods of recruitment (nor the actions that our troops are being sent towards by the current administration).
2006-11-15 15:51:23
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6644|The Gem Saloon
i wont blame it on clinton or the left. we all know that clinton cut troops and funds blah blah blah old news......this is now, not then. i do think that there is a definite moral problem with the military today. how can that be solved? everyone has their opinion but i dont think any of us know. i dont think that pulling out of iraq will help the problem (not saying anyone said that just using an example), as it will be seen as a defeat in the soldiers eyes.

now, on to the media and giving info to the terrorists. yes i agree to an extent that they can get very damaging information from any number of sources....anyone remember or seen the video of geraldo in afghanistan giving away the positions of SF teams on live TV. once those sf guys realized what he was doing they started shooting at his ass lol great stuff, but kind of off topic. anyway, ya when im looking up stuff in the FOIA viewing room i am still amazed at some of the information we have a right to know. now where i disagree, or maybe its not even a disagreement....but i think that those numbers on that link are correct. as far as battalions go. however i could almost gaurentee that USSOCOM wouldnt be as willing to show their numbers. (especially because theyre doing a first time ever special recruitment deal just to get the ranks filled).........but thats all i got.

Last edited by Parker (2006-11-15 15:53:54)

2006-11-15 16:00:04
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|6972|Eastern PA

Parker wrote:

(especially because theyre doing a first time ever special recruitment deal just to get the ranks filled).........but thats all i got.
They did that in the 1950s and 60s. You could join SF right after enlisting/completing OCS. Which is why there were lieutenants in SF units in Vietnam.
2006-11-15 16:08:38
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6644|The Gem Saloon
this is different though, those were shake n bakes. now you may enlist with your MOS as SF.
2006-11-16 01:44:32
blisteringsilence
I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy
+83|6952|Little Rock, Arkansas

IRONCHEF wrote:

What also bugs me is that in this TP article, the poster references this Washington Post article that says we're running low on troops? 2/3rds of our active ARMY are not ready? And we're the most powerful military in the world?  WTF?  What happened to the 500,000 we sent to free Kuwait in '91?  Are we really spread that thin so we can't send 200,000, or 300,000 soldiers to Iraq (not that they need to be there)?  What exactly are WE relying on in the event of a domestic attack?  We have around 35,000 in Korea as we've had for decades.  I'm sure Germany still has the same count they've had for at least a decade.  Is there a mysterious force of 500,000 hidden in the polar caps or something that can't be used?  Orrrr...has the recruitment goals being met been a lie?
What the article says is that 2/3s aren't ready to deploy. There's way more to deploying a unit that sticking a bunch of guys on a plane. Some of the problem is that we're not leaving the same equipment over there for the new groups coming in. They bring their own vehicles, their own tools, their own weapons and supplies, everything.

So, rather than showing up and jumping into vehicles that are ready to go (which is what many of the troops deployed to the gulf in 90/91 did), they have to fix all that shit and get it ready to go. Units that come back have guys that are at end of tour and leave, get replacements, officers get promoted, and all these new people have to be brought up to speed.

Not to mention our deployments elsewhere. Korea, Japan, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, all of these places have significant troop levels.

Now, the numbers don't include the rest of the services, who are just as much if not more spread out than the army. Not that the navy has that much to do with Iraq, but the Marines sure do.

I don't have the answers, just explainations. Might we reinstate a draft in this country? I really don't know. I will tell you that if we do, I'm headed down to the nearest recruitment station, and signing up for the Navy. They already want me as a medic, I might as well. It'd be better than Iraq, thats for sure.

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard