RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story

RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (Full Version)

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

Message

caitlyn -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/23/2008 12:53:26 PM)
My problem, is that I'm a moderate Democrat that wants to see one of our candidates in the White House. Things like this only hurt our chances. I can think of twenty things to attack President Bush on, in the next five minutes. For Rummy, it doesn't even take that long. Going after them on a questionable story like this, is just not very wise ... one of the few foolish things Senator Obama has done in this campaign. We aren't going to be able to deliver pre-addressed, stamped, ballots to people's homes in the general election, or give them rides to the polls, or offer free hotdogs and soda to encourage people to vote. In the general election we can't offer free daycare while people vote for our candidate. We are not going to get the turnout in the general election, that we are getting in the primary on the Democratic side. To win, we will actually need to get some votes from currently undecided people. Blaming the President for things that just are, what they are, is not going to be a winning formula, especially from a candidate that is promissing change, but seems to be slipping in to the politics as usual model.

mnottertail -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/23/2008 12:54:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn I would be curious to know what war has ever been fought that didn't have shortages, and equipment that wasn't ideal. I understand there was a war in heaven, once, and it was replete with cheribums and seraphims and archangels and gods and demons runnin' all around up in there.

Level -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/23/2008 12:54:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn I would be curious to know what war has ever been fought that didn't have shortages, and equipment that wasn't ideal. I don't know, but I'd guess that most wars have hit such snags. My foggy memory seems to be conjuring up images of our soldiers having to rely on ingenuity during WWII at times, as well.... Is it a matter of "shit will happen in war, so it's a given that we'll have to adjust and adapt", or is it inexscuable to ask our soldiers to deal with shortages?

KenDckey -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/23/2008 3:38:54 PM)
I am sure there are shortages. I agree with the SecArmy that you go to war with what you have too. No one gets an unlimited supply of anything. R&D is important as well. Discovering how to do more with less is essential. Even in WWII GI ingenuity was used to breach barracades that no one had thought of. The "all might military industrial complex" that we hear about that is cheating us out of our money can't produce due limitations some of which are established by civilians who have no military experience. Priorities are established. Often situations change before the priorities aare executed. It is a no win situation. Stock piles have been depleated. Depots wereclosed by politicaians to save money. What we had we no longer have. It will be gone forever. So what is the solution. Realistically go to war with what you have.

Alumbrado -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/23/2008 3:48:59 PM)
Read 'The Khaki Mafia'... wherever there is a supply chain, there will always be unwarranted shortages. The question is what causes particular problems and are they fixed? If not, who is getting rich at who's expense?

Sinergy -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/23/2008 3:50:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey So what is the solution. Realistically go to war with what you have. The other theory is that you dont vote in a bunch of criminal idiots who use fraudulent practices to go to fight a war the Germans learned was unwinnable in World War 2. A lesson taught them by people the Chickenhawk cheerleaders referred to as cheese eating surrender monkeys. Then you dont end up in the type of war our military was never designed to fight, using mercenaries we agreed not to use in Geneva. Sinergy

domiguy -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/23/2008 4:01:42 PM)
I agree with Caitlyn...He is going to kick ass and doesn't need to get bogged down by making comments that can be construed in a negative light if it can easily be avoided. Powell is done with politics. He won't return. As far as Obama being lacking in military experience....I will take common sense over experience any day...He will have the ability to surround himself with people to assist him in any areas that he feels he might personally be lacking. His strength is that he is not entrenched...Bull, this nation does not need a Warrior..It needs someone who can proceed with a level head...Somone who can identify who are our enemies and who has the capability as well as the intention of causing us harm. Why does it take a warrior to be able to make those types of decisions? Apparently in the recent past we have not had too many warriors as Presidents. Who was a warrior?...Bush? His pop? Clinton? Reagan? We need a warrior like we need higher gas prices....Maybe we need a leader that could come up with an alternative fuel source....We need a scientist.

thompsonx -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/23/2008 4:38:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I am sure there are shortages. I agree with the SecArmy that you go to war with what you have too. No one gets an unlimited supply of anything. R&D is important as well. Discovering how to do more with less is essential. Even in WWII GI ingenuity was used to breach barracades that no one had thought of. The "all might military industrial complex" that we hear about that is cheating us out of our money can't produce due limitations some of which are established by civilians who have no military experience. Priorities are established. Often situations change before the priorities aare executed. It is a no win situation. Stock piles have been depleated. Depots wereclosed by politicaians to save money. What we had we no longer have. It will be gone forever. So what is the solution. Realistically go to war with what you have. KenDckey: There is always the option of ...not going to war. thompson

Owner59 -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/23/2008 6:17:27 PM)
I knew it wouldn`t take long for someone to blame Bill Clinton.Thanks KenDckey...lol I wish the comfychair comanders were more concerned with the welfare of our GIs and less with covering up Bush`s fuck-ups(or blaming Clinton). There`s no doubt that when you try to fight two wars on two different continents,neither are going to get what they need. The war(the real war on terror)in Afghanistan is what Mr. Obama is referring to and he`s quoting what a soldier serving there said. Of course the fuck-ups in Washington are going to deny it.But sense there is a sucker born every five minutes,there will be folks who`ll believe Washington,over a GI in the field. What they said is true.For Washington,it`s an inconvenient truth.I don`t care what Ronald Dumsfeld said or what they`re saying today.This is the most incompetent group ever gathered to run our military.It`s absolutely clear they didn`t do a stick of planing,other than staging awesome photo opportunities. There is also no doubt that Iraq is a huge distraction and the main reason why the real war(on terror) is suffering unacceptable shortages. Does anyone believe that we would be stretched so thin and dealing w/ shortages if it were`nt for Iraq?We would have twice the resources for Afghanistan if it wasn`t for Iraq.

wkdshadow -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/23/2008 6:46:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey So what is the solution. Realistically go to war with what you have. The other theory is that you dont vote in a bunch of criminal idiots who use fraudulent practices to go to fight a war the Germans learned was unwinnable in World War 2. A lesson taught them by people the Chickenhawk cheerleaders referred to as cheese eating surrender monkeys. Then you dont end up in the type of war our military was never designed to fight, using mercenaries we agreed not to use in Geneva. Sinergy It's a generally accepted observation that if it wasn't for the involvement of America in WW2's end game, they likely would have succeeded in their plans on the other fronts, and had more to throw at Russia. Part of the problem was the heavy reliance on mechanized units in Russia. Because of the winter and design differences, the German tanks would ice over and tankers were left to fight with their rifles/sidearms - which also experienced failures in the extreme cold - against the more suited Russian mechanized units. I'd like to point out that a Tanker is not Infantry. 75% of Germany's losses were in the eastern front, a major portion of which are attributed to weapons being thrown into enviornments they weren't designed or tested for, and subsequent reassignment of troops to other roles. The famous "scorched earth" defense was so effective because the armor, transport, and supply lines were cut via the winter, mines, and other explosive devices. Do those last two sentances sound familiar? If not, you might wanna reread my last post. Continuing with some history of war since I'm here anyways and drawing lines, another part of the war that we saw that had influence was the overall combat style of the Russians. If you watch "Enemy at the gates", they cover an important aspect of the war on the part of the Russians that was seen all over the battlefield, not just at Stalingrad. They sent their troops out without weapons sometimes, even in direct confrontation with MG34 and MG42(the famously fast machine gun) fire. If you were a Russian soldier, you had a choice: Get shot by the Germans, or get shot by your comrades. If the offensive was failing, get shot by your comrades anyway. This inspired the creative use of Guerilla tactics on the Russian's part. The importance and signifigance of an individual designated marksman/sniper was quickly realized at the beginning of the German incursion, and by the time they hit Stalingrad there were few areas that could be safely crossed without first shelling/mortaring them. Mechanized movement was again hampered by the use of IEDs, and the very reliable and effective RPG-7s which are still being used in Iraq against US forces with effectiveness, albeit mitigated by "recent" developments against HEAT rounds such as Chobham and reactive armor. I'll reinforce the fact that the Russians won by removing the German's resupply and reinforcements. When the Germans started focusing on Russia instead of Britain, winter and guerilla war won with equipment failure, the Russian's being more afraid of facing their own machine guns at that point than the German's. Hell of a way to fight a war on either side.

wkdshadow -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/23/2008 7:47:40 PM)
After a shower and thus time to articulate some more thoughts, I thought I'd point out some more parallels inbetween WW2 and now. During the war, Hitler became fanatical about his weapons programs, misappropriating resources like crazy. With the success of the "Dora" railed artillery cannon that was used to shell Britain, he concentrated engineering efforts on the V3 cannon. After the success of the V1 missile, engineers were thrown onto the pseudosuccessful V2 rocket - while supersonic flight was obtained, it gave no advantages over the V1 save for interceptability. With Britain's use of over the horizon radar to mitigate bombing runs, he dumped engineers into stealth bomber/fighter projects that I don't recall went anywhere. There's also the good old famous "supersoldier" drug trials that were done and various other programs, a good portion of which were psuedoscience and justification for sadists to play with the jews and POWs(America did the same thing later on in MKULTRA). On the small arms front, despite ammo shortages, the increased consumption of ammo under automatic fire, and decreased accuracy(especially with main battlerifle rounds), Hitler and his underlings started pushing automatic weapons such as the MP34, MP40, STG44, MP3008, and FG42 as well as more MG34s and MG42s on all fronts as opposed to the very accurate K98(bolt action), G41(semi auto), and K43(semi auto) which were being successfully used. This is of course despite the Russians primary use of semiautomatic weapons such as the SVT-40, AVS-36, and the bolt action Mosin Nagant. The PPD-40 and PPS weren't widely distributed to troops for the very reasons mentioned above: It was noticed that soldiers hit less, and used more ammo while using automatic weapons. Nothing like trying to overengineer a solution to simple problems.

xBullx -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/23/2008 8:26:12 PM)
I think you're missing my point Domiguy..........I'm sick of Politics the Norm and I'm of the opinion that Obama is just more of the same. As for who were the Warriors.........of all those you listed only Pops was; the others were, not so much. While it might be ok to surround yourself with Ecomomist and Social advisors, are you really prepared to have another President fumble his way through the warrior tasks? I'm not nuts about McCain, but I am less nuts about the alternative, is Obama your choice for his policies, his skills his charisma or some other reason? Bull

thompsonx -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/23/2008 10:03:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xBullx I think you're missing my point Domiguy..........I'm sick of Politics the Norm and I'm of the opinion that Obama is just more of the same. As for who were the Warriors.........of all those you listed only Pops was; the others were, not so much. While it might be ok to surround yourself with Ecomomist and Social advisors, are you really prepared to have another President fumble his way through the warrior tasks? I'm not nuts about McCain, but I am less nuts about the alternative, is Obama your choice for his policies, his skills his charisma or some other reason? Bull Bull: My opinions about elections and politicians is pretty well documented on these boards. I just wanted to have you clarify or perhaps rethink your assessment of "Ace McCain" as a warrior. From what I have read(his autobiography "Faith of my Fathers") he had about thirty days on station and claims 22 combat missions (possible but not probable). For his five minutes over Hanoi he collected 28 medals including a silver star three bronze stars and a distinguished flying cross. He signed a confession to being a war criminal and gave tactical military information to his captors. This does not rise to the level of warrior in my book but then each of us has his own criteria. http://www.usvetdsp.com/mcainmdl.htm

thompsonx -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/23/2008 10:20:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wkdshadow quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey So what is the solution. Realistically go to war with what you have. The other theory is that you dont vote in a bunch of criminal idiots who use fraudulent practices to go to fight a war the Germans learned was unwinnable in World War 2. A lesson taught them by people the Chickenhawk cheerleaders referred to as cheese eating surrender monkeys. Then you dont end up in the type of war our military was never designed to fight, using mercenaries we agreed not to use in Geneva. Sinergy It's a generally accepted observation that if it wasn't for the involvement of America in WW2's end game, they likely would have succeeded in their plans on the other fronts, and had more to throw at Russia. Part of the problem was the heavy reliance on mechanized units in Russia. Because of the winter and design differences, the German tanks would ice over and tankers were left to fight with their rifles/sidearms - which also experienced failures in the extreme cold - against the more suited Russian mechanized units. I'd like to point out that a Tanker is not Infantry. 75% of Germany's losses were in the eastern front, a major portion of which are attributed to weapons being thrown into enviornments they weren't designed or tested for, and subsequent reassignment of troops to other roles. The famous "scorched earth" defense was so effective because the armor, transport, and supply lines were cut via the winter, mines, and other explosive devices. Do those last two sentances sound familiar? If not, you might wanna reread my last post. Continuing with some history of war since I'm here anyways and drawing lines, another part of the war that we saw that had influence was the overall combat style of the Russians. If you watch "Enemy at the gates", they cover an important aspect of the war on the part of the Russians that was seen all over the battlefield, not just at Stalingrad. They sent their troops out without weapons sometimes, even in direct confrontation with MG34 and MG42(the famously fast machine gun) fire. If you were a Russian soldier, you had a choice: Get shot by the Germans, or get shot by your comrades. If the offensive was failing, get shot by your comrades anyway. This inspired the creative use of Guerilla tactics on the Russian's part. The importance and signifigance of an individual designated marksman/sniper was quickly realized at the beginning of the German incursion, and by the time they hit Stalingrad there were few areas that could be safely crossed without first shelling/mortaring them. Mechanized movement was again hampered by the use of IEDs, and the very reliable and effective RPG-7s which are still being used in Iraq against US forces with effectiveness, albeit mitigated by "recent" developments against HEAT rounds such as Chobham and reactive armor. I'll reinforce the fact that the Russians won by removing the German's resupply and reinforcements. When the Germans started focusing on Russia instead of Britain, winter and guerilla war won with equipment failure, the Russian's being more afraid of facing their own machine guns at that point than the German's. Hell of a way to fight a war on either side. wkdshadow: Your description of the eastern front seems to follow typical "cold war" propaganda...ie: the Russians were lucky for a cold winter and yadda yadda yadda. The facts are that the Germans went to an ass kicking contest without their boots. As a consequence they got their asses spanked. The Germans lost nearly a quarter of a million men in the assault on Moscow and nearly another hundred thousand in the retreat from Moscow. They lost another million plus killed wounded or captured at Stalingrad. These two battles amount to almost half of the three million men that Hitler invaded Russia with. The Russians could have whipped Hitlers "supermen"all by themselves...it would have taken a little longer but none the less after the defeat in front of Moscow, for the Germans, it was just a long walk back home. thompson

KenDckey -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 5:22:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I am sure there are shortages. I agree with the SecArmy that you go to war with what you have too. No one gets an unlimited supply of anything. R&D is important as well. Discovering how to do more with less is essential. Even in WWII GI ingenuity was used to breach barracades that no one had thought of. The "all might military industrial complex" that we hear about that is cheating us out of our money can't produce due limitations some of which are established by civilians who have no military experience. Priorities are established. Often situations change before the priorities aare executed. It is a no win situation. Stock piles have been depleated. Depots wereclosed by politicaians to save money. What we had we no longer have. It will be gone forever. So what is the solution. Realistically go to war with what you have. KenDckey: There is always the option of ...not going to war. thompson I agree that is an option, a preferable one at that, but that isn't an option the military can exercise, only one that politicians control. If the military exercised that option it would probably have to overthrow the politicians like they do in other countries where the military doesn't agree with what the leaders do. Not a good option as far as I can see for us. But I know very few soldiers that ever wanted a war. They just fight them when told to. so it comes back then to the politicians.

thompsonx -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 6:53:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I am sure there are shortages. I agree with the SecArmy that you go to war with what you have too. No one gets an unlimited supply of anything. R&D is important as well. Discovering how to do more with less is essential. Even in WWII GI ingenuity was used to breach barracades that no one had thought of. The "all might military industrial complex" that we hear about that is cheating us out of our money can't produce due limitations some of which are established by civilians who have no military experience. Priorities are established. Often situations change before the priorities aare executed. It is a no win situation. Stock piles have been depleated. Depots wereclosed by politicaians to save money. What we had we no longer have. It will be gone forever. So what is the solution. Realistically go to war with what you have. KenDckey: There is always the option of ...not going to war. thompson I agree that is an option, a preferable one at that, but that isn't an option the military can exercise, only one that politicians control. If the military exercised that option it would probably have to overthrow the politicians like they do in other countries where the military doesn't agree with what the leaders do. Not a good option as far as I can see for us. But I know very few soldiers that ever wanted a war. They just fight them when told to. so it comes back then to the politicians. KenDckey: This thread is about the politicians who take our country, unprepared, to war. Why do you inject this spurious contention about soldiers overthrowing the government. Now if they just refused,en mass, to go that would be insubordination and not treason. Would you approve of that? thompson

subrob1967 -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 7:19:43 AM)
Maybe, just maybe, they wouldn't run out of ammunition if they would stop wasting 250,000 rounds to kill each and every Insurgent...

Owner59 -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 8:33:52 AM)
subrob1967, Is that the actual ammount of ammo per dead guy we`re spending? Seems high but possible.Where did you hear those numbers from?

Sinergy -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 11:01:18 AM)
Thanks for the insight, wkdshadow. I am not disagreeing with anything you have written. My point was more about the change in the nature of warfare in the 20th century. Taking territory and "capturing the king" no longer works because the occupying army becomes a bunch of targets sitting around waiting to get shot by insurgent forces. This is why the US seldom put troops on the ground, preferring to blow things up and fly or sail home, declaring mission accomplished. Of course, Vietnam proved aerial bombardment doesnt work either. As WOPR pointed out, "a fascinating game, the only way to win is not to play." Sinergy

caitlyn -> RE: Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story (2/24/2008 11:06:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Of course, Vietnam proved aerial bombardment doesnt work either. Vietnam only proved that aerial bombardment didn't work in Vietnam.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625