Good news you don't hear. Operation Inherent Resolve

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

Good news you don't hear. Operation Inherent Resolve

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Good news you don't hear. Operation Inherent Resolve

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Good news you don't hear. Operation Inherent Resolve - 3/6/2016 7:49:35 AM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

Destroyed or damaged:
Tanks 139
HMMWv'S 371
Staging Areas 1,043
Buildings 5,582
Fighting Positions 6,720
Oil Infra. 1,216
Other targets 6,430
Total 21,000+

HERE

Territory of ISIL control.

HERE

Very interesting look at our decaying, failed devastated military that the repubs would have you believe.

HERE

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 3/6/2016 8:03:10 AM >

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

Post #: 1

RE: Good news you don't hear. Operation Inherent Resolve - 3/6/2016 11:08:32 PM

Phydeaux

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

It helps if you read more than democrat talking points Mr. Rodgers.

Those are the combat figures for all operations by both us and our allies.

As for our devestated military,

In 1993, our navy had 454 ships, with 13 carriers.
In 2015, we have 271 ships with 10 carriers.

In 1992 we had 1.9 millon active duty service men. In 2014 we were down to 1.4 million.

We have 76 B-52's. The airforce rates these planes suitable for 45% of missions.
We have 20 B-2's. 9 can fly. Three are available for service.
We have 62 B-1's. They have a 58% readiness - meaning roughly 32.
We've scrapped the A-10.

Trying to pretend that our military is anything but severely depleted is fatuous.

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Post #: 2

RE: Good news you don't hear. Operation Inherent Resolve - 3/6/2016 11:31:22 PM

joether

Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

It helps if you read more than democrat talking points Mr. Rodgers.

Those are the combat figures for all operations by both us and our allies.

As for our devestated military,

In 1993, our navy had 454 ships, with 13 carriers.
In 2015, we have 271 ships with 10 carriers.

In 1992 we had 1.9 millon active duty service men. In 2014 we were down to 1.4 million.

We have 76 B-52's. The airforce rates these planes suitable for 45% of missions.
We have 20 B-2's. 9 can fly. Three are available for service.
We have 62 B-1's. They have a 58% readiness - meaning roughly 32.
We've scrapped the A-10.

Trying to pretend that our military is anything but severely depleted is fatuous.

Talking points? LOL!

You foolishly assume reality in 1993 is the same as 2016. Times change. With it a whole pile of changes. Since back in 1945, the United States had well over 45+ carriers! According to your 'logic' we should blame the GOP for that drastic reduction in carriers when Bill Clinton came to power in 1992....

Yes, we as a nation reduced the size of the military; its called 'budget cuts'. It happens every so often. Before you go blaming the Democrats, its the Republicans whom removed revenue without making the adjustments on the budget first; resulting in a growing deficit that helped the national debt balloon!

Yeah, you leave out a considerable amount of information your party did, just to make an argument. How about try sticking to the topic? That there was a military operation and it does appear to have successes against ISIL. Or are you one of those Trump supporters whom can not give the President an ounce of 'congrats'?

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Post #: 3

RE: Good news you don't hear. Operation Inherent Resolve - 3/7/2016 2:25:08 AM

tweakabelle

Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

It helps if you read more than democrat talking points Mr. Rodgers.

Those are the combat figures for all operations by both us and our allies.

As for our devestated military,

In 1993, our navy had 454 ships, with 13 carriers.
In 2015, we have 271 ships with 10 carriers.

In 1992 we had 1.9 millon active duty service men. In 2014 we were down to 1.4 million.

We have 76 B-52's. The airforce rates these planes suitable for 45% of missions.
We have 20 B-2's. 9 can fly. Three are available for service.
We have 62 B-1's. They have a 58% readiness - meaning roughly 32.
We've scrapped the A-10.

Trying to pretend that our military is anything but severely depleted is fatuous.

As I recall, one of the loudest and most influential voices demanding a downsizing of your military was none other than that well known GOP hawk Donald Rumsfeld.

It is facile to simply compare numbers with bygone eras and draw conclusions based on those numbers alone. The type of threat a military has to deal with has changed enormously since the days when carrier fleets were the last word in military sophistication. Fro instance, a complete new battlefield has emerged in the shape of cyberwarfare. The 'enemy' these days isn't a conventional army/navy/air force but highly mobile terrorists. Is it far from clear to me that adding a few carrier groups would enhance the US's capacity to fight IS or AQ, today's enemies.

_____________________________

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Post #: 4

RE: Good news you don't hear. Operation Inherent Resolve - 3/7/2016 7:42:10 AM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

It helps if you read more than democrat talking points Mr. Rodgers.

Those are the combat figures for all operations by both us and our allies.

As for our devestated military,

In 1993, our navy had 454 ships, with 13 carriers.
In 2015, we have 271 ships with 10 carriers.

In 1992 we had 1.9 millon active duty service men. In 2014 we were down to 1.4 million.

We have 76 B-52's. The airforce rates these planes suitable for 45% of missions.
We have 20 B-2's. 9 can fly. Three are available for service.
We have 62 B-1's. They have a 58% readiness - meaning roughly 32.
We've scrapped the A-10.

Trying to pretend that our military is anything but severely depleted is fatuous.

Those navy ships are 100 times what they were capable of in 1993. And the days of Admiral Nelson are over.

Seems to me that the air force needs to hire some mechanics.
We could dump nearly 50% of the toys being bought, they wont work in a real war. 75% of the pentagon, and get ground troops, manpower wise, we are just slightly undermatched by the terrors of the planet, India, and North Korea (but their abacus is broke, I assure you).

Our expenditure is 3 times the next country. And more than the next 8-12 countries combined, now; since this has been the darling and the baliwick of the nutsuckers, it would seem that most of our money is going to these nutsucker communist causes and pockets and we are not getting our moneys worth, because as the nutsuckers note, our military is in deplorable condition (and the tacit premise must be: because nutsuckers caused it to be so).

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Post #: 5

RE: Good news you don't hear. Operation Inherent Resolve - 3/7/2016 9:01:01 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

As for our devestated military,

In 1993, our navy had 454 ships, with 13 carriers.
In 2015, we have 271 ships with 10 carriers.

Who are we goint to war with?
Why do we need 271 ships and 10 carriers.

In 1992 we had 1.9 millon active duty service men. In 2014 we were down to 1.4 million.

Who do you wish to go to war with?

We have 76 B-52's. The airforce rates these planes suitable for 45% of missions.

How old is the b 52? What is it's mission?

We have 20 B-2's. 9 can fly. Three are available for service.

Who were you planning on bombing?

We have 62 B-1's. They have a 58% readiness - meaning roughly 32.

The b 1 is a useless piece of overpriced hardware.

We've scraped the A 10

So what?

Trying to pretend that our military is anything but severely depleted is fatuous.

Trying to pretend that our bloated military is necessary is fatuous

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Post #: 6

RE: Good news you don't hear. Operation Inherent Resolve - 3/7/2016 9:19:38 AM

Phydeaux

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

And the usual crew of liberal idiots piles on. It would be helpful if they could either
a) read. or
b) have the honesty to not misrepresent what I said.

First: I did not dispute that gains were not being made against ISIL. I disputed that the figures Mr. Rodgers presented as figures for US operations, were in fact NOT US operations. And so they have no bearing on whether or not the US military has been decimated or not.

Second: Tweak: I have no doubt that a grasp of most things military, is, in fact beyond you. But regardless of how you choose to employ the military - on EVERY metric of military force, and readiness, US capabilities are below what they were in 1993. Today's enemies are not merely IS and AQ. We also need the force to safeguard the south china seas; to maintain our commitments to South Korea and Nato etc. Regardless that the capabilities of each boat or each bomber have increased - so have our opponents. And their is no question the preponderance of force equation is slipping away from the US.

Three: Joether: My original note said nothing about the responsible party. I merely disputed Rodgers claim. However, since you bring it up, there can be little doubt where the blaim predominantly lies.
Budget cuts are a fact of life - where those cuts occur is based on the preferences of the parties. Whether it was bill clinton cutting the military under the guise of a peace dividend - democrats typically prefer to cut defense spending rather than domestic spending. Are you really contesting that?

Four: Thompsonx: Nothing you said is worth responding to. Don't feed the trolls.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Post #: 7

RE: Good news you don't hear. Operation Inherent Resolve - 3/7/2016 9:31:01 AM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

And we need to cut defense spending, we aint buying real defense, and if we dont get it in order with reality and the world, there will be nothing left to defend.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Post #: 8

RE: Good news you don't hear. Operation Inherent Resolve - 3/7/2016 9:53:58 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Four: Thompsonx: Nothing you said is worth responding to. Don't feed the trolls.

This is your typical answer when you find your head up your ass and cant find your turn signals.
The question remains who do you want to go to war with?

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Post #: 9

RE: Good news you don't hear. Operation Inherent Resolve - 3/7/2016 9:57:11 AM

Phydeaux

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And we need to cut defense spending, we aint buying real defense, and if we dont get it in order with reality and the world, there will be nothing left to defend.

I actually agree with you, that we need to cut defense. We have way to many generals and flag officers. We need to ditch the Abrams tank in favor of a replacement. etc. At the same time, we need to invest in quieter subs. We need to fix the damn joint fighter. Much as I love the idea of rail guns, the zumwalt is a 4 billion dollar monstrosity.

(in reply to mnottertail)

Post #: 10

RE: Good news you don't hear. Operation Inherent Resolve - 3/7/2016 10:02:39 AM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Unfortunately years of nutsucker innumeracy, incompetence, ' defense spending' pork for the military-industrial complex have left us with a devastated military, infrastructure, and economy.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Post #: 11

RE: Good news you don't hear. Operation Inherent Resolve - 3/7/2016 10:48:52 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I actually agree with you, that we need to cut defense.

Then why are you sniviling about the size of the military?

We have way to many generals and flag officers.

Which ones do you want to fire?

We need to ditch the Abrams tank in favor of a replacement.

What do you want to replace it with?

etc. At the same time, we need to invest in quieter subs.

We need to fix the damn joint fighter.

Besides the price tag what else don't you like?

Much as I love the idea of rail guns, the zumwalt is a 4 billion dollar monstrosity.

They are using them to launch aircraft now instead of the steam catapult.

< Message edited by thompsonx -- 3/7/2016 10:49:07 AM >

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Post #: 12

RE: Good news you don't hear. Operation Inherent Resolve - 3/7/2016 11:07:06 AM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

It helps if you read more than democrat talking points Mr. Rodgers.

Those are the combat figures for all operations by both us and our allies.

As for our devestated military,

In 1993, our navy had 454 ships, with 13 carriers.
In 2015, we have 271 ships with 10 carriers.

In 1992 we had 1.9 millon active duty service men. In 2014 we were down to 1.4 million.

We have 76 B-52's. The airforce rates these planes suitable for 45% of missions.
We have 20 B-2's. 9 can fly. Three are available for service.
We have 62 B-1's. They have a 58% readiness - meaning roughly 32.
We've scrapped the A-10.

Trying to pretend that our military is anything but severely depleted is fatuous.

Well first, since when is the DoD a source only for democratic talking points ? I regard it as a source of ALL talking points. But you refer to the high point of the Bush I/Clinton peace dividend. But since then.....!!

Phy, you can do better than this.

March 3, 2016 11:38 AM
ARLINGTON, Va. — The Navy is in the midst of a massive shipbuilding spree, with 65 ships across eight shipyards under contract or in construction today – but maintaining that pace in the short-term and trying to replicate or even accelerate it for the next generation of surface combatants presents the Navy and industry with some serious challenges, officials said. HERE

Active duty personell: 2001 1,385,116 to fight two wars !!
2002 1,413,577
2007 1,380,082
2011 1,468,364 HERE
2015 1,400,000 HERE

B-52's.....In September 2011, North Dakota Senator John Hoeven announced that the Senate Appropriations Committee had approved $88 million for further upgrades to the 76 B-52H bombers that remain out of the total production run of 744 aircraft.

According to US Air Force Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, Commander of the Air Force Global Strike Command, there's still a "lot of life left" in the B-52H and it maintains the capacity to carry out it's duel nuclear/conventional roles "across the conflict spectrum." HERE

B1's & 2's.....The $283 million B-1B Lancer first rolled off the assembly line in 1988 with a state-of-the-art radar-jamming system that jammed its own radar. The $2 billion B-2 Spirit, introduced a decade later, had stealth technology so delicate that it could not go into the rain.

“There have been a series of attempts to build a better intercontinental bomber, and they have consistently failed,” said Owen Coté, a professor of security studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Turns out whenever we try to improve on the B-52, we run into problems, so we still have the B-52.” And this is a democrat problem ? This something to blame on Obama ? HERE

A-10.....February 4/16: The life of the A-10 attack jet will be extended until 2022 after it was announced in Secretary for Defense Ash Carter’s 2017 defense budget preview on Tuesday. Lawmakers including former A-10 pilot Rep. Martha McSally and Sen. John McCain who supported the plane’s continuation were pleased with the announcement. HERE

Trying to pretend that our military is severely depleted is not only fatuous but just more ridiculous, unmitigated, partisan bullshit.

OH and the successes of Operation Inherent Resolve...is still good news.

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 3/7/2016 11:37:18 AM >

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Post #: 13

RE: Good news you don't hear. Operation Inherent Resolve - 3/7/2016 10:02:46 PM

Phydeaux

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Phy, you can do better than this.

March 3, 2016 11:38 AM
ARLINGTON, Va. — The Navy is in the midst of a massive shipbuilding spree, with 65 ships across eight shipyards under contract or in construction today – but maintaining that pace in the short-term and trying to replicate or even accelerate it for the next generation of surface combatants presents the Navy and industry with some serious challenges, officials said. HERE

Active duty personell: 2001 1,385,116 to fight two wars !!
2002 1,413,577
2007 1,380,082
2011 1,468,364 HERE
2015 1,400,000 HERE

Mr. Rodgers, I'm not sure where anything you just quoted disputed anything I just said.

Despite building 65 ships (and retiring 40 some) the US Navy will still not break the 300 mark. Its trying like hell to maintain 10 carrier groups, but I don't think its going to be possible, when one of the carriers goes in for a fuel refit. To that, a lack of escorts. The US is building arleigh burkes which were originally to be retired.

quote:

B-52's.....In September 2011, North Dakota Senator John Hoeven announced that the Senate Appropriations Committee had approved $88 million for further upgrades to the 76 B-52H bombers that remain out of the total production run of 744 aircraft.

So you're agreeing we have 76 B-52's. Out of the original run of 744. As I said. And?

quote:

Trying to pretend that our military is severely depleted is not only fatuous but just more ridiculous, unmitigated, partisan bullshit.

Mr. Rodgers. The army had a reduction of 29% in BCT in FY 2013 alone. The 2016 index of US Military strength is "weak" (google). Only 30 % of Army BCT's are combat ready.

The US needs on average of 21 BCT's for a modest deployment. We have 32. Of these, only 12 are ready for action.

Nothing I have said is inaccurate or misleading. If you want to contest that the US military is historically weak - find some creditable source that ranks it as such.

And no, comparisons to other countries is not an appropriate measure. We have obligations in korea, europe; in other words- compare current strength vs our historical strength.

< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 3/7/2016 10:06:40 PM >

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Post #: 14

RE: Good news you don't hear. Operation Inherent Resolve - 3/8/2016 2:11:13 AM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Phy, you can do better than this.

March 3, 2016 11:38 AM
ARLINGTON, Va. — The Navy is in the midst of a massive shipbuilding spree, with 65 ships across eight shipyards under contract or in construction today – but maintaining that pace in the short-term and trying to replicate or even accelerate it for the next generation of surface combatants presents the Navy and industry with some serious challenges, officials said. HERE

Active duty personell: 2001 1,385,116 to fight two wars !!
2002 1,413,577
2007 1,380,082
2011 1,468,364 HERE
2015 1,400,000 HERE

Mr. Rodgers, I'm not sure where anything you just quoted disputed anything I just said.

Despite building 65 ships (and retiring 40 some) the US Navy will still not break the 300 mark. Its trying like hell to maintain 10 carrier groups, but I don't think its going to be possible, when one of the carriers goes in for a fuel refit. To that, a lack of escorts. The US is building arleigh burkes which were originally to be retired.

quote:

B-52's.....In September 2011, North Dakota Senator John Hoeven announced that the Senate Appropriations Committee had approved $88 million for further upgrades to the 76 B-52H bombers that remain out of the total production run of 744 aircraft.

So you're agreeing we have 76 B-52's. Out of the original run of 744. As I said. And?

quote:

Trying to pretend that our military is severely depleted is not only fatuous but just more ridiculous, unmitigated, partisan bullshit.

Mr. Rodgers. The army had a reduction of 29% in BCT in FY 2013 alone. The 2016 index of US Military strength is "weak" (google). Only 30 % of Army BCT's are combat ready.

The US needs on average of 21 BCT's for a modest deployment. We have 32. Of these, only 12 are ready for action.

Nothing I have said is inaccurate or misleading. If you want to contest that the US military is historically weak - find some creditable source that ranks it as such.

And no, comparisons to other countries is not an appropriate measure. We have obligations in korea, europe; in other words- compare current strength vs our historical strength.

Simply put, Obama has not devastated our military by the numbers if what we had in 2001-3 was enough to start two wars. Yes 76 B-52's is more than enough now if that was enough then. Yes, 1.4 million active duty personnel is enough now if that has been enough for the most of the 21 century...and so on. So yes, what you charge is more than misleading...it's flat out wrong. You had the A-10 scrapped, it is not.

Our obligations haven't changed and any comparison historically hasn't changed for the 23 years since Bush I began reductions either and what is in my opinion, (I am not alone) left a military more than large enough under Bush I...starting with Operation Desert Storm.

As always, what needs to be asked, when one looks at this chart HERE and military spending, just on how and where is defense and military capability suffered and if so point it out and otherwise tell me specifically, what was Obama supposed to do ? Build more carriers, more subs ? Why ? Called for new enlistments ? Why ? Oh ok, we need to add more fighters or some kind of plane, lord knows the AF is devastated under Obama. [sic]

We are even now as we debate the issue...adding F-35's like we are going into a new war. At an original cost of $1.3 trillion, the program is now 50% over budget and 7 years late. How many do we need ? Several hundred ? How about 2,443 new planes that actually reflect that we are still in a cold war with a vanished USSR ?

Like I've said, going after Obama is partisan BS. If you have a problem with our military, all one needs to do is look at congress and the MIC...there's your villain. "The world has changed. The odds of great power war have declined dramatically. We still need a deterrent capacity against China and Russia, but how much is enough? In a decade's time, the United States plans to have 15 times as many modern fighters as China, and 20 times as many as Russia." HERE

Phy, you simply are not able to be objective and look for partisan prate on it seems...every issue. Time to be objective. Anytime any country draws down after wars, personnel comes way down. Was the US military weak as of 1945-46 because millions left the army and we decommissioned ships ? Was our military devastated under Eisenhower when we left Korea ?

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 3/8/2016 2:28:09 AM >

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Post #: 15

RE: Good news you don't hear. Operation Inherent Resolve - 3/8/2016 4:27:23 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Mr. Rodgers, I'm not sure where anything you just quoted disputed anything I just said.

Then go get a grown up to read the big words to you and explain them.

Despite building 65 ships (and retiring 40 some) the US Navy will still not break the 300 mark. Its trying like hell to maintain 10 carrier groups, but I don't think its going to be possible, when one of the carriers goes in for a fuel refit. To that, a lack of escorts. The US is building arleigh burkes which were originally to be retired.

Why do we need 10 cbg?

B-52's.....In September 2011, North Dakota Senator John Hoeven announced that the Senate Appropriations Committee had approved $88 million for further upgrades to the 76 B-52H bombers that remain out of the total production run of 744 aircraft. [/quote]

So you're agreeing we have 76 B-52's. Out of the original run of 744. As I said. And?

Out of 744 built, the last one being more than fifty years ago. How many do you think should be left?
There were about 30 lost to combat and another 20 or so that were lost to accidents.
Perhaps you could tell us what the yearly strength of buffs was. you seem to be implying that at one time we had a fleet of 744 b52's and that now we have only 10% of them left.

[
Mr. Rodgers. The army had a reduction of 29% in BCT in FY 2013 alone. The 2016 index of US Military strength is "weak" (google). Only 30 % of Army BCT's are combat ready.

Who do you want to go to war with?

Nothing I have said is inaccurate or misleading.

Everything you say is inaccurate and misleading. It is what you do.

If you want to contest that the US military is historically weak - find some creditable source that ranks it as such.
Weaker than what? Weaker than after the revoution? Weaker than after the war of 1812? Weaker than after the civil war? Weaker than after the spanish american war? Weaker than after ww1,ww2.korea? viet nam?????Who do you want to go to war with?

in other words- compare current strength vs our historical strength.

Since it is your claim show us????

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Post #: 16

RE: Good news you don't hear. Operation Inherent Resolve - 3/8/2016 5:03:21 AM

WickedsDesire

Posts: 9362
Joined: 11/4/2015
Status: offline

Has his mace (not that daft spray) , knobkerrie see its a real thing, and tar and feathers – and I have been known to use them, metaphorically speaking.

Not sure what this thread is about truth be told. Is it about ISIS (balance there are may many factions fighting each other and who is on whos side)and why the rest of the world hasn't bombed them back to the stone age as I can assure you it has the capacity.

War changed a long long time ago, people can cite WW1 WW2 often, rarely do they cite is Korea thing and Vietnam, I always forget what came first. Lets call it the cold war after that things a changed. And I am what actually 46 so none of them are really that long ago.

So, whatever this thread is on about, is it about precision warfare or troops on the ground. I remain unconvinced all of the world combined would have stood a chance in ww2 scorched earth weapons aside of which you lot used two....and the debate will rumble on regarding that or will it be forgotten - yes this one like all of the aforementioned wars.

Being Scottish, I only speak for some of us I would remove trident from our shores - the English can have that - think we have 4 submarines and we certainly have no aircraft carriers, 2 are on order, perhaps one is almost built.

A better question is who should police the world, and sure I see why the UK stands with America ( and I am okay with that - although you lot get out of hand at times- sure we all did it in day of old; UK Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal) Not time for lessons in history in days of lore or crusades and so on. As this is about tonka toys, this thread methinks, and if war is about precision implements or troops on the ground.

IMO its about troops on the ground. Not eg us in the UK (please note I consider myself Scottish and am nor war mongerer) And out ability to claim we will reign down hellfire ( I think thats an actual missile system we have) we will do so by loaning 6 spitfires and 6 bombs which we will ration over the year.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Post #: 17

RE: Good news you don't hear. Operation Inherent Resolve - 3/8/2016 8:27:05 AM

joether

Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
And the usual crew of liberal idiots piles on. It would be helpful if they could either
a) read. or

Oh, not only do we read, but KNOW your usual 'view' on things. Which is to say you'll leave out those things that destroy your argument and hope the liberals are as dumb as conservatives and not bother to check information (which liberal do....OFTEN).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
b) have the honesty to not misrepresent what I said.

No one needs to misrepresent what you stated; it is easy enough to counter your bullshit arguments. Now if you had 'air tight' arguments; yeah, I could see some being tempted to misrepresent your viewpoints. But if you were that intelligent and educated; you would be a liberal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
First: I did not dispute that gains were not being made against ISIL. I disputed that the figures Mr. Rodgers presented as figures for US operations, were in fact NOT US operations. And so they have no bearing on whether or not the US military has been decimated or not.

To know that would imply you have.....FULL ACCESS....to classified military information from the Pentagon. Care to admit the details?

You do not have full access and therefore are not even remotely certain of what all has gone into the operation(s). This is something you do in all your posts. You state 'A', and we call you on the bullshit. We do so with....EVIDENCE....and.....FACT. Then you get 'huffy' and 'bitchy' and give us a pile of replies that lead to more counters to the bullshit your trying to shovel. You literally think the second or third time around, that liberals will behave like conservatives: not bother to check the information and accept everything without question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Second: Tweak: I have no doubt that a grasp of most things military, is, in fact beyond you. But regardless of how you choose to employ the military - on EVERY metric of military force, and readiness, US capabilities are below what they were in 1993. Today's enemies are not merely IS and AQ. We also need the force to safeguard the south china seas; to maintain our commitments to South Korea and Nato etc. Regardless that the capabilities of each boat or each bomber have increased - so have our opponents. And their is no question the preponderance of force equation is slipping away from the US.

"Plans are useless, but planning is indispensable!" -General Dwight D. Eisenhower on the lead-up to D-Day-

The military can handle a considerable amount of operations and on different levels. It can not however, maintain a long range and long term conflict using well over 50,000 troops. You can go blame former US President George W. Bush whom racked up a $10 trillion dollar debt during his terms in office. Iraq alone cost the nation $1 trillion in debt and another $3 trillion in long term damages (i.e. paying for wounded veterans throughout their lives).

The US Military can handle operations most of the other big nation's military generals can only dream about. The USA is not shrinking in any way; your just listening to conservative talk ratio babble. Those radio folks deal in......FEAR.....because conservatives are very susceptible to fear concepts. But then, that is why more conservatives have firearms than liberals; because they are prone to fears both real and imaginary. After all, haven't conservatives stated that President Obama would take away all their guns? Yeah, back in 2008 in the lead up to his term in the White House. And the seven and a half years.....SINCE. Yet, people STILL have their firearms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Three: Joether: My original note said nothing about the responsible party. I merely disputed Rodgers claim. However, since you bring it up, there can be little doubt where the blaim predominantly lies.
Budget cuts are a fact of life - where those cuts occur is based on the preferences of the parties. Whether it was bill clinton cutting the military under the guise of a peace dividend - democrats typically prefer to cut defense spending rather than domestic spending. Are you really contesting that?

Dude, you....IMPLY.....all the time. You thought your argument was so subtle that no one would 'get it'. Again, you made conservative mistake #2: thinking that liberals are just as dumb as conservatives. Yes, your 'attack' was thinly veiled towards the Clinton and Obama administrations. That you can not admit it shows how deceptive you think your argument is.....

Why do Democrats go after Defense Budget Cuts? Because Republicans go after Social Security and other social programs that help the weakest and most vulnerable in the nation. So Democrats hit the Republicans were it hurts: whomever will give them money for the next election. Democrats do not like cutting the budget, not even for the military. Republicans....LOVE....cutting budgets. Maybe you should go bitch at the people responsible for fucking up the US budget and raising the US Debt. But you can't. That would be the RESPONSIBLE thing to do. To hold your political party to the same level of accountability and responsibility as you slam Democrats and the President on a daily basis!

The Republican Party of 2016 is...NOT...the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan. Its more a Nazis Party thanks to your front runner: Donald Trump. Yes, back in the late 1930's, the Nazis demanded a strong military; whatever for? That people are making strong comparisons between Hitler and Trump while most conservatives remain ignorant with their heads up their asses should not go unnoticed. But that is for a different topic.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Four: Thompsonx: Nothing you said is worth responding to. Don't feed the trolls.

No, it is because he makes good points and you have no intellectual counters to them. Often, I find his material is pretty good, thoughtful, and quite interesting. Now if only he would make his statements not just in BOLD but with COLOR

(in reply to Phydeaux)

Post #: 18

RE: Good news you don't hear. Operation Inherent Resolve - 3/8/2016 8:37:17 AM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

The party of Ronald Reagan was not in any respect republican or conservative, it was worshipping falsities and a dildo in a necktie.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to joether)

Post #: 19

RE: Good news you don't hear. Operation Inherent Resolve - 3/8/2016 4:05:01 PM

Phydeaux

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Phy, you can do better than this.

March 3, 2016 11:38 AM
ARLINGTON, Va. — The Navy is in the midst of a massive shipbuilding spree, with 65 ships across eight shipyards under contract or in construction today – but maintaining that pace in the short-term and trying to replicate or even accelerate it for the next generation of surface combatants presents the Navy and industry with some serious challenges, officials said. HERE

Active duty personell: 2001 1,385,116 to fight two wars !!
2002 1,413,577
2007 1,380,082
2011 1,468,364 HERE
2015 1,400,000 HERE

Mr. Rodgers, I'm not sure where anything you just quoted disputed anything I just said.

Despite building 65 ships (and retiring 40 some) the US Navy will still not break the 300 mark. Its trying like hell to maintain 10 carrier groups, but I don't think its going to be possible, when one of the carriers goes in for a fuel refit. To that, a lack of escorts. The US is building arleigh burkes which were originally to be retired.

quote:

B-52's.....In September 2011, North Dakota Senator John Hoeven announced that the Senate Appropriations Committee had approved $88 million for further upgrades to the 76 B-52H bombers that remain out of the total production run of 744 aircraft.

So you're agreeing we have 76 B-52's. Out of the original run of 744. As I said. And?

quote:

Trying to pretend that our military is severely depleted is not only fatuous but just more ridiculous, unmitigated, partisan bullshit.

Mr. Rodgers. The army had a reduction of 29% in BCT in FY 2013 alone. The 2016 index of US Military strength is "weak" (google). Only 30 % of Army BCT's are combat ready.

The US needs on average of 21 BCT's for a modest deployment. We have 32. Of these, only 12 are ready for action.

Nothing I have said is inaccurate or misleading. If you want to contest that the US military is historically weak - find some creditable source that ranks it as such.

And no, comparisons to other countries is not an appropriate measure. We have obligations in korea, europe; in other words- compare current strength vs our historical strength.

Simply put, Obama has not devastated our military by the numbers

The budget control act of 2011 cut 487 billion. Sequestration cut an additional 495 billion.

quote:

You had the A-10 scrapped, it is not.

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/house-panel-votes-to-scrap-a-10-warthog-1.288117

quote:

Like I've said, going after Obama is partisan BS.

Here is my entire first note. Please find a single comment I made going after obama:

quote:

It helps if you read more than democrat talking points Mr. Rodgers.

Those are the combat figures for all operations by both us and our allies.

As for our devestated military,

In 1993, our navy had 454 ships, with 13 carriers.
In 2015, we have 271 ships with 10 carriers.

In 1992 we had 1.9 millon active duty service men. In 2014 we were down to 1.4 million.

We have 76 B-52's. The airforce rates these planes suitable for 45% of missions.
We have 20 B-2's. 9 can fly. Three are available for service.
We have 62 B-1's. They have a 58% readiness - meaning roughly 32.
We've scrapped the A-10.

Trying to pretend that our military is anything but severely depleted is fatuous

quote:

"The world has changed. The odds of great power war have declined dramatically.

Says who? South china sea, north korea, crimea, baltic states, ukraine, yemen, syria, ..

Its funny. The DOD rates threats to US military as extreme, so I'm wondering who your all knowing source is...

quote:

Phy, you simply are not able to be objective and look for partisan prate on it seems...every issue. Time to be objective. Anytime any country draws down after wars, personnel comes way down. Was the US military weak as of 1945-46 because millions left the army and we decommissioned ships ? Was our military devastated under Eisenhower when we left Korea ?

Look mate. The entire start of this thread was I pointed out that your post was bull shit. You were trying to say that the "Operation Inherent Resolve" showed american successes; you tried to argue there for that the US military wasn't decimated.

The facts stand unchanged: The operation IR numbers are for all nations, not the US alone.

And you have no counter for the fact that the pentagons own review of capabilities and readiness rate the army as weak. I have quoted actual Pentagon reviews. You have no counter, except to pound the table.

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Post #: 20

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Good news you don't hear. Operation Inherent Resolve

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.139