RE: "AP: Marines fail to get gear to troops"

RE: "AP: Marines fail to get gear to troops" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

farglebargle -> RE: "AP: Marines fail to get gear to troops" (5/24/2007 8:26:08 PM)
What Cause?

Sinergy -> RE: "AP: Marines fail to get gear to troops" (5/24/2007 8:35:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle What Cause? That is the question the jingoistic war-monger crowd never answers. Apparently, one is unpatriotic if one fails to rabidly jump about and support the slaughter of our military, the short-changing them of required items to do their jobs, and the bankruptcy of our country, or asks the question "why the hell are we doing this?" If we didnt have to pay in blood and destruction for them playing in the sand, I really wouldnt give a damn what their hobby is. But they non-consensually drag me into their idiocy. Sinergy

TheHeretic -> RE: "AP: Marines fail to get gear to troops" (5/24/2007 8:35:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BabyNyla My hubby is in Iraq and they can't even get deodorant ... let alone firing glasses, rifle pins and other important things ... this story is not news ... nor is it shocking ... I support my husband and other soldiers ... but not the goverment ... it's so unorganized it's ridiculous. Normal people are always shocked to discover these things ... I think Hollywood glamorizes the military and the goverment and people think it's so structured and organized rolls eyes Just a little anecdote to throw in on this. I spent the late 80's on one of the bases that was being massively built up as part of Reagan's strategy to topple the USSR. We went through a round of budget cuts in (probably) '88. It didn't slow down the construction of hardened shelters one bit, but the bowling alley was delayed six months and they quit providing free toilet paper in the barracks. Fucking with the money is fucking with the quality of life for the troops. The Pentagon buys bullets and bombs first.

vield -> RE: "AP: Marines fail to get gear to troops" (5/24/2007 8:44:58 PM)
As long as there have been formed units of troops attempting to operate at the end of a long supply line this has occurred and will occur. The priorities of the troops in the field are very rarely the same as the troops/people of the supply department. Often the supply people have obsessions with sorting and counting their beans, and do not relate well to the needs of those in combat. Sometimes they do not care, but even if they do there is always a time lag between field needs and system response. There is NO relationship between what political group is in charge of the military and how much they do or do not wish to support the troops. Burocracy always has lots of sand in the gears. For a very graphic vision of how bad this can get, rent the movie "Zulu Dawn" and focus on the supply sargent who issues the ammunition.....

Faramir -> RE: "AP: Marines fail to get gear to troops" (5/24/2007 8:45:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Faramir I can't belive you just wrote "Japs." Why? That's what Roosevelt called them. We fought the Japs in WWII. Ya know... the Brits were once our mortal enemy yet its ok to say Brits. But "Brits" isn't part of a racial Othering rhetoric. Words like "Jap," "Kike" or "Nigger" are part and parcel of a race based rhetoric that marginalizes and oppresses other human beings based on racial and ethnic orgin, so the use of "Brit" isn't comparable. I don't give a rat's ass that Roosevelt used the word "Japs,"--he also used the word "Nigger," and I find that word pretty objectionable. People who use words like "Jap" are either very, very stupid (they don't have a basic adult understanding of history, race and language), or they are racist turds. Getting to Know the Racial Views of Our Past Presidents: What about FDR? The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, No. 38 (Winter, 2002-2003)

FatDomDaddy -> RE: "AP: Marines fail to get gear to troops" (5/24/2007 9:09:47 PM)
Yawn...... I guess Kraut is out too for our other WWII enemy? Oh wait... they were white..... so no harm... just funny right???? Now let me get back to my movie. It's a 1944 classic, Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips.

TheHeretic -> RE: "AP: Marines fail to get gear to troops" (5/24/2007 9:13:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle What Cause? (I damn near threw you to the red hand over a crack you made to somebody earlier in this thread, Fargle. That's a bullshit tactic and you'd need the big bottle of Astro-Glide to put it where I think it belongs.) This is an interesting question. I've also heard it called "the Revolution" and "the Movement." I suspect it's intentionally vague, so every little special interest group will feel it is important and to attract the biggest numbers of potential true believers. I used to think it was about social justice, equality under the law, respect for human rights and dignity, feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, comforting the sick, but not any more. When it comes to the real "cause," all those ideals become secondary. The cause is "Get Bush," at any price.

imthatacheyouhav -> RE: "AP: Marines fail to get gear to troops" (5/24/2007 9:14:03 PM)
Concerning the post title....you cant put the words Marines and failed in the same sentence...it FCKS with the space time continuem or some SHT...

farglebargle -> RE: "AP: Marines fail to get gear to troops" (5/24/2007 9:16:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle What Cause? (I damn near threw you to the red hand over a crack you made to somebody earlier in this thread, Fargle. That's a bullshit tactic and you'd need the big bottle of Astro-Glide to put it where I think it belongs.) This is an interesting question. I've also heard it called "the Revolution" and "the Movement." I suspect it's intentionally vague, so every little special interest group will feel it is important and to attract the biggest numbers of potential true believers. I used to think it was about social justice, equality under the law, respect for human rights and dignity, feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, comforting the sick, but not any more. When it comes to the real "cause," all those ideals become secondary. The cause is "Get Bush," at any price. Well, he IS an alleged criminal. Do YOU believe it is right for an alleged criminal to represent the United States? And SHOULDN'T he be removed for failing to fulfill his pledge to restore Honor and Integrity to the White House? Is "Accountability" just a long word beginning with the letter "A", or does it really mean anything to those people who continue to support Bush? Do not forget, I'm not a liberal. I'm so Traditionally Conservative, Bush is a Commie.

girl4you2 -> RE: "AP: Marines fail to get gear to troops" (5/24/2007 9:22:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy Yawn...... I guess Kraut is out too for our other WWII enemy? yeah, and i guess ya can't call anyone a fucktard either? drats.

TheHeretic -> RE: "AP: Marines fail to get gear to troops" (5/24/2007 9:33:56 PM)
Let me provide an analogy that some will just tear into without any thought at all. We are all cruising along in the Family Truckster after a wedding or funeral or whatever and somehow the dumbass brother-in-law winds up driving. Nobody can actually force him to pull over and get in the back but some among us think it's perfectly ok to kick his seat, scream that he drove drunk 20 years ago, slap the back of his head and pretend they are going to yank the e-brake so they'll look cool. Does this sort of behavior make it more or less likely that we'll safely get to a place where we can put a new driver in the seat? And why the FUCK would I want one of those punks driving next?

DomKen -> RE: "AP: Marines fail to get gear to troops" (5/24/2007 9:49:43 PM)
First for the spelling impaired, IT'S DEMOCRATIC PARTY! Yes, I know it is an attempt to belittle the party and its members but I'm sick of it. Now if you read the whole article the report covers the period the 1st MEF was in Iraq, that is Feb. 2006 to Feb. 2007. IOW 11 months were with replutocrat party in control of all branches of government and at the end of a long run of such control. And it was a lot worse than a few supply sergeants not delivering everything ordered. The Marines on the ground requested a mine resistant vehicle and instead of the Pentagon procurement officers buying them in 2006 they bought more armored humvees which the insurgents easily defeated. Now finally the Pentagon has decided to acquire a few thousand of these vehicles but it may well be 2009 before the US military sees more than a couple because civilain orders have consumed the companies production capacity for about that long. My nephew spent most of 2005 and early 2006 in Iraq with a guard transport company. He did not receive body armor that fit, he's tall 6' 3" but WTF? We tried to buy him a vest and ship it to him but apparently that is not allowed any longer. We did wind up chipping in to get his whole company a set of two way radios since they didn't have any sort of between vehicle communications. He's home now and is hoping his enlistment will end before his units next stop loss so he can get out without having to go back there. Note that he volunteered for the guard in 2004 knowing full well what it meant. His mother, father and I are all vets and we talked to him and made sure he was sure about the decision. But now he openly calls it the worst mistake of his life and has stated that if a stop loss keeps him in the guard for a return deployment he will go to Canada. I'm a vet and I know guys in the field aren't going to get all the comforts of home but when troops can't get basics like body armor, radios or adequately armored transports then it is time to get them home.

farglebargle -> RE: "AP: Marines fail to get gear to troops" (5/24/2007 10:31:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Let me provide an analogy that some will just tear into without any thought at all. We are all cruising along in the Family Truckster after a wedding or funeral or whatever and somehow the dumbass brother-in-law winds up driving. Nobody can actually force him to pull over and get in the back but some among us think it's perfectly ok to kick his seat, scream that he drove drunk 20 years ago, slap the back of his head and pretend they are going to yank the e-brake so they'll look cool. Does this sort of behavior make it more or less likely that we'll safely get to a place where we can put a new driver in the seat? And why the FUCK would I want one of those punks driving next? Exactly WHY can't the unsafe driver be replaced?

farglebargle -> RE: "AP: Marines fail to get gear to troops" (5/24/2007 10:33:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen First for the spelling impaired, IT'S DEMOCRATIC PARTY! Yes, I know it is an attempt to belittle the party and its members but I'm sick of it. Now if you read the whole article the report covers the period the 1st MEF was in Iraq, that is Feb. 2006 to Feb. 2007. IOW 11 months were with replutocrat party in control of all branches of government and at the end of a long run of such control. And it was a lot worse than a few supply sergeants not delivering everything ordered. The Marines on the ground requested a mine resistant vehicle and instead of the Pentagon procurement officers buying them in 2006 they bought more armored humvees which the insurgents easily defeated. Now finally the Pentagon has decided to acquire a few thousand of these vehicles but it may well be 2009 before the US military sees more than a couple because civilain orders have consumed the companies production capacity for about that long. My nephew spent most of 2005 and early 2006 in Iraq with a guard transport company. He did not receive body armor that fit, he's tall 6' 3" but WTF? We tried to buy him a vest and ship it to him but apparently that is not allowed any longer. We did wind up chipping in to get his whole company a set of two way radios since they didn't have any sort of between vehicle communications. He's home now and is hoping his enlistment will end before his units next stop loss so he can get out without having to go back there. Note that he volunteered for the guard in 2004 knowing full well what it meant. His mother, father and I are all vets and we talked to him and made sure he was sure about the decision. But now he openly calls it the worst mistake of his life and has stated that if a stop loss keeps him in the guard for a return deployment he will go to Canada. I'm a vet and I know guys in the field aren't going to get all the comforts of home but when troops can't get basics like body armor, radios or adequately armored transports then it is time to get them home. I shipped over a bunch of routers early on, because they couldn't get their shit together enough to deliver a 50$ router with the computers. Of course, the Mercenaries ALL get paid first, don't they? We're paying for what? 10,000 of them to run around?

Lordandmaster -> RE: "AP: Marines fail to get gear to troops" (5/24/2007 10:38:04 PM)
So let me get this straight. The Pentagon isn't outfitting the troops properly...and it's the Democrats' fault? I think I missed the logic there. quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice Unbelievable. Surely our troops deserve better than this. Quite a few Democrat Congressman disagree with you novice

TheHeretic -> RE: "AP: Marines fail to get gear to troops" (5/24/2007 10:38:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Exactly WHY can't the unsafe driver be replaced? Because the Constitution doesn't give hecklers a veto.

farglebargle -> RE: "AP: Marines fail to get gear to troops" (5/24/2007 10:48:56 PM)
Hecklers? Is that how you characterize those who call for enforcement of the Laws of the nation? I mean, seriously, why would you protect an alleged felon? You soft on crime or something? The presentation of information to Congress and the general public through: deceit, craft, trickery, dishonest means, and fraudulent representations, including lies, half-truths, material omissions, and statements made with reckless indifference to their truth or falsity while knowing and intending that such fraudulent representations would influence Congress' decisions regarding authorization to use military force and funding for military action, constitutes interfering with, obstructing, impairing, and defeating a lawful government function of a department of the United States within the meaning of Section 371.

dcnovice -> RE: "AP: Marines fail to get gear to troops" (5/24/2007 10:56:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Let me provide an analogy that some will just tear into without any thought at all. We are all cruising along in the Family Truckster after a wedding or funeral or whatever and somehow the dumbass brother-in-law winds up driving. Nobody can actually force him to pull over and get in the back but some among us think it's perfectly ok to kick his seat, scream that he drove drunk 20 years ago, slap the back of his head and pretend they are going to yank the e-brake so they'll look cool. Does this sort of behavior make it more or less likely that we'll safely get to a place where we can put a new driver in the seat? And why the FUCK would I want one of those punks driving next? Rich --- The flaw to your analogy, I think, is that a car can only have one driver, while our system of government has three branches. A more apt analogy might be two brothers (President and Congress) who run a business--with a wise old aunt (Judiciary) as a silent partner who weighs in on major issues. If one brother is running the business into the ground, the other would be within his rights--and responsibilities, even--to confront him and try to get things back on track. Cheers, DC

farglebargle -> RE: "AP: Marines fail to get gear to troops" (5/24/2007 11:00:16 PM)
I think the real problem is the "Soft On Crime" bleeding-heart attitude.

TheHeretic -> RE: "AP: Marines fail to get gear to troops" (5/24/2007 11:06:03 PM)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge/ You'll find a reference to what a "hecklers veto" is worth about haf-way down. Or, if your internet is working faster than mine, search the phrase on the Supreme Court site ( www.supremecourtus.gov I think). At this point, even if the Dems could come up with a prosecutable case, they've cried "wolf" too many times to pull it off without one complete MOTHERFUCKER of a smoking gun. The brakes and steering on this ride are already a bit squirrelly, do you think an impeachment at 75 mph is such a hot idea?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125