Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by geddon97:
quote:
Originally posted by DILLY:
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
My experience with the left is that they care little or nothing about the soldiers who die in combat other than using them as some convenient tool to gain power and legitimacy for their causes.



What about sending our troops to war for no known reason without armor? Do you think this is disrespectful? I do!! Bush did nothing but treat our troops as if they were disposable for his own selfish reasons that are still to be determined. This is the ultimate disrespect!
How about Clinton in Somalia?Sending troops into battle without proper armor support.I`m sorry but you have absolutely no clue about what your talking about.But who on the left does.




Oh yeah? Well it looks like I know exactly what I'm talking about. (Oh, by the way, you just helped support my theory of how the republicans, when faced with the shortcomings of Bush, bring up someone elses shortcomings without admitting Bush's failure!)

If you remeber our troops were having to find scrap metal in junkyards to make their own armor. Did they do this because we had no armor, Of coarse not! We have plenty of armored tanks and Humvees for our troops. Bush, however, trying to fight a cheap war sent our troops into harms way totally exposed. So what do you think Bush was trying to do, save a buck or save our troops. And I don't think that I need to bring up the condition of the hospitals that our injured troops were in. I think that you got the point. Bush couldn't have cared less about our troops.

A vote for Bush was a vote for our troops huh? You guys totally fell for that one.
Dilly let me explain the world to you.We went in with the armor that we had.The terrorists adapted to that and made stronger bombs to penetrate our armor.Thus we improvised and upped our armor and developed new vehicles that could withstand the bombs.It`s called humans adapting to different things.Your accusations that Bush sent troops into harms way without proper equipment is laughable at best and absolutely dispictable at worst.I suugest that you stop watching MSNBC and reading the Daily Kos.Your starting to wander into JJ territory.That is if you aren`t JJ himself.
You have to send troops to war, with or without armor. As a military officer (retired), I can tell you that the mission you are assigned to has the first priority. There are wartime actions that you have to take that guarantee the person taking it will die. As far as the armor goes, as a veteran of numerous acquisition programs (with the same congress that points all of this out, mind you) I can guarantee the difficulty of getting small items like this approved for purchase. And, yes, I can also tell you about pirating parts off aircraft to make others fully mission capable. Remember that Bush doesn't have the authority to obligate funds, that rests solely in Congress' hands. Try to recall your high school civics lessons.

No commander in battle (I have been one) relishes losing troops, but you have to put on your big boy pants and understand that the job has to be done, and some people are going to die. You do your best within the operational environment to make the other side lose more people than you do, but you go in knowing that some are going to come home in bags. This is hardly treating troops as disposable commodities, it is a harsh reality that a few of us have known. Bush, as commander in chief and as a former military officer himself, is probably more aware of the reality of this than his successor. Mr. Obama may understand it in an abstract manner; people like Bush and McCain know the reality.

It fries me about the so-called "peace" movement...you really have to understand the reality of warfare, rather than the idea of it, to really be committed to peace. Unfortunately, the price of that peace is very, very high. The leftards want peace from all of us in group hugs; I don't have a problem with peace coming from people being too afraid of us to start anything.
quote:
Originally posted by geddon97:
Dilly let me explain the world to you.We went in with the armor that we had.The terrorists adapted to that and made stronger bombs to penetrate our armor.Thus we improvised and upped our armor and developed new vehicles that could withstand the bombs.It`s called humans adapting to different things.Your accusations that Bush sent troops into harms way without proper equipment is laughable at best and absolutely dispictable at worst.I suugest that you stop watching MSNBC and reading the Daily Kos.Your starting to wander into JJ territory.That is if you aren`t JJ himself.



geddon97,

Here is an actual account of what went on. According to GlobalSecurity.org it all came to light about what was really going on in Iraq when Donald Rumsfeld fielded a question from soldiers preparing to move from Kuwait to Iraq. Army Specialist Thomas Wilson asked Mr. Rumsfeld why soldiers are being sent to war in humvees and trucks so vulnerable that troops must forge for "rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that's already been shot up, dropped, busted,picking the best out of this scrapto put on our vehicles to take into combat". Many of Wilson's 2,300 comrads in the hanger were applauding in agreement.

Rumsfeld response was very close to what you have said, wich is total bull crap "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want or wish to have at a later time."

The shortage of armored humvees showed the miscalculations of the war in Iraq. We had plent of time and money to send our troops into battle with the equipment that they needed. Instead the troops were asking family members to send them bullet proof vests. What a crying shame!!!

In another article by 60 Minutes' Steve Kroft states that "With a $400 billion defense budget you might think U.S. troops have everything they need to fight the war, but that's not the case." He also state that "most of the vehicles in Iraq arrived ther without armored plating, because the Pentagon war planners didn't anticipate a long bloody insugency.



This is mismanagement because Bush didn't care.
Last edited by DILLY
quote:
Originally posted by DILLY:
This is mis mansagemaent because Bush didn't care.


Perhaps miscalculation because we've not had experience fighting this type of war. We always start a war with the knowledge base from previous wars; and it's almost always wrong. We gain knowledge through combat operations, and pay a high price.

Your statement that Bush didn't care is disingenuous to the highest degree. Perhaps you and your ilk are blessed with some sort of second sight that allowed you to peer into the future and see the need for armored humvees long before the conflict started or even know that Saddam was lying when he swore to the world he was developing nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, we have to make decisions based on what we know at the time.
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
quote:
Originally posted by DILLY:
This is mis mansagemaent because Bush didn't care.


Perhaps miscalculation because we've not had experience fighting this type of war. We always start a war with the knowledge base from previous wars; and it's almost always wrong.



Do you mean to tell me that we had absolutely no idea that there were bombs over there. People over there are blowing stuff up all the time. Just about every time you turn on the news some radical group has planted a bomb somewhere. Heck I even would have known that troops need armor. We have fought many wars and in every one since I've been alive were bombs. So why was this such a shock? How could they have not known?
Bush hurried us into this war and in doing so sent our troops in harms way unprepared. This was totally avoidable, totally disrespectful to our troops and their families, and totally wrong.
Last edited by DILLY
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
quote:
Originally posted by DILLY:
This is mis mansagemaent because Bush didn't care.


Perhaps miscalculation because we've not had experience fighting this type of war. We always start a war with the knowledge base from previous wars; and it's almost always wrong. We gain knowledge through combat operations, and pay a high price.

Your statement that Bush didn't care is disingenuous to the highest degree. Perhaps you and your ilk are blessed with some sort of second sight that allowed you to peer into the future and see the need for armored humvees long before the conflict started or even know that Saddam was lying when he swore to the world he was developing nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, we have to make decisions based on what we know at the time.




So let me get this straight. You said that we start a war based on knowledge of previous wars. I agree with you 100%. So since there have been bombs in every war we have fought, I would think that it is perfectly reasonable to assume that there are going to be bombs in this war. As a matter of fact it should be expected don't you think? So to say that we send our troops to war without armor because we didn't know that there were going to be bombs is quite commical. I don't buy this for one second. When we go to war it is a given that there are going to be bombs and bullets.Who in the world would be surprised by this? Now if they woud have had some sort of death ray and our bullets could not penetrate their force field then I would expect us to be surprised. But to say that we were caught off guard because we didn't know due to past experience that there were not going to be bombs is simply rediculous.
Last edited by DILLY
quote:
Originally posted by DILLY:
So let me get this straight. You said that we start a war based on knowledge of previous wars. I agree with you 100%. So since ther have been bombs in every war we have fought, I would think that it is perfectly reasonable to assume that there are going to be bombs in this war. As a matter of fact it should be expected don't you think? So to say that we send our troops to war without armor because we didn't know that there were going to be bombs has got is quite commical. I don't buy this for one second. We were going to war. it is a given that there are going to be bombs and bullets.Who in the world would be surprised by this? Now if they woud have had some sort of death ray and our bullets could not penetrate their force field then I would expect us to be surprised. But to say that we were caught off guard because we didn't know due to past experience that there were not going to be bombs is simply rediculous.


In every war we have fought and won (Viet Nam) our adversary was technically a nation-state, with industrial centers of gravity and an identifiable political infrastructure. The opposing troops wore identifiable uniforms and carried arms openly. This is what our military experience has been. Our adversary now melts into the population, uses terror and intimidation tactics, and really has no discernible military organizational structure. They just yell "Allah akbar!" and crank off a magazine from their AK47s.

Yes, there have always been booby traps. The Japanese were very good at it; they would place hand grenades under dead bodies or under map bags to explode when an unwary soldier moved it to examine it. It's long been a military axiom that, in a battle between bombs and armor, the bombs will ultimately prevail. The Humvees were built as a replacement for the ubiquitous Jeep; it was never designed as a bombproof, armored car. We have those things; they're called "tanks". But daisy chain half a dozen 105mm shells together with primacord and you can put a serious dent in any tank in the world.

Just get to the point of acceptance, whether you agree to it or not, that we'll be sending troops into dangerous areas where they might get killed. This is "war". It really doesn't matter whether or not you're blown up with an IED, shot with a $2.00 bullet, or fried with a death ray. Dead is dead. Soldiers are going to die. Hanging armor on a Humvee is not the best solution. We have, currently deployed in the field, special programs to deal with IEDs. A young captain, who was my protege while I was on active duty, recently returned from Iraq where he was assigned to an infantry unit, executing one of the IED suppression programs. They work very well, much better than armor. Our soldiers are equipped with the best equipment, best situational awareness, and best training in the history of the entire world. Are things going to get through the cracks? Yes. Are soldiers still going to die? Yes. Having real-time satellite imagery available to a maneuver unit, showing where the bad guys are, is never going to fix that. It gives them a better shot at prevailing, but they still have to close with, engage, and destroy the enemy. You might have absolute technical superiority, but a twelve year old with an AK47 can still shoot you in the back of the head when you walk by.

To not send soldiers into a combat area simply because it's dangerous has never really been a part of military policy.
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
quote:
Originally posted by DILLY:
So let me get this straight. You said that we start a war based on knowledge of previous wars. I agree with you 100%. So since ther have been bombs in every war we have fought, I would think that it is perfectly reasonable to assume that there are going to be bombs in this war. As a matter of fact it should be expected don't you think? So to say that we send our troops to war without armor because we didn't know that there were going to be bombs has got is quite commical. I don't buy this for one second. We were going to war. it is a given that there are going to be bombs and bullets.Who in the world would be surprised by this? Now if they woud have had some sort of death ray and our bullets could not penetrate their force field then I would expect us to be surprised. But to say that we were caught off guard because we didn't know due to past experience that there were not going to be bombs is simply rediculous.


In every war we have fought and won (Viet Nam) our adversary was technically a nation-state, with industrial centers of gravity and an identifiable political infrastructure. The opposing troops wore identifiable uniforms and carried arms openly. This is what our military experience has been. Our adversary now melts into the population, uses terror and intimidation tactics, and really has no discernible military organizational structure. They just yell "Allah akbar!" and crank off a magazine from their AK47s.

Yes, there have always been booby traps. The Japanese were very good at it; they would place hand grenades under dead bodies or under map bags to explode when an unwary soldier moved it to examine it. It's long been a military axiom that, in a battle between bombs and armor, the bombs will ultimately prevail. The Humvees were built as a replacement for the ubiquitous Jeep; it was never designed as a bombproof, armored car. We have those things; they're called "tanks". But daisy chain half a dozen 105mm shells together with primacord and you can put a serious dent in any tank in the world.

Just get to the point of acceptance, whether you agree to it or not, that we'll be sending troops into dangerous areas where they might get killed. This is "war". It really doesn't matter whether or not you're blown up with an IED, shot with a $2.00 bullet, or fried with a death ray. Dead is dead. Soldiers are going to die. Hanging armor on a Humvee is not the best solution. We have, currently deployed in the field, special programs to deal with IEDs. A young captain, who was my protege while I was on active duty, recently returned from Iraq where he was assigned to an infantry unit, executing one of the IED suppression programs. They work very well, much better than armor. Our soldiers are equipped with the best equipment, best situational awareness, and best training in the history of the entire world. Are things going to get through the cracks? Yes. Are soldiers still going to die? Yes. Having real-time satellite imagery available to a maneuver unit, showing where the bad guys are, is never going to fix that. It gives them a better shot at prevailing, but they still have to close with, engage, and destroy the enemy. You might have absolute technical superiority, but a twelve year old with an AK47 can still shoot you in the back of the head when you walk by.

To not send soldiers into a combat area simply because it's dangerous has never really been a part of military policy.



So according to your rant there is no way that we could have protected our troops any better than sending them to drive around on the streets of Iraq in what soldiers referred to as cardboard coffins. We do have humvees with better armor than what we sent our troops out with.

To use the excuse that things and people are going to get blown up no matter how much armor we have is irresponsible. You might as well say that they don't need to wear bullet proof vests untill someone shots at them and the type of bullet is determined. If they are going to get blown up anyway, as you say, then we might as well have sent them out there in Ford escorts or bicycles to save on fuel costs. To send a soldier to battle without armor because he/she is going to get shot or blown up anyway is total disrespect.
Last edited by DILLY
quote:
Originally posted by DILLY:
So according to your rant there is no way that we could have protected our troops any better than sending them to drive around on the streets of Iraq in what soldiers referred to as cardboard coffins. We do have humvees with better armor than what we sent our troops out with.


Yes, we have tanks. There are a lot of reasons we didn't use them. As I said before, Humvees are jeep replacements. Their vulnerability makes them convenient targets. We have vehicles that have better armor now.

quote:
To use the excuse that things and people are going to get blown up no matter how much armor we have is irresponsible. You might as well say that they don't need to wear bullet proof vests untill someone shots at them and the type of bullet is determined. If they are going to get blown up anyway, as you say, then we might as well have sent them out there in Ford escorts or bicycles to save on fuel costs.


Irresponsible if you have no background in military history; realistic if you do. It's why we don't have castles anymore...the explosive shells breached castle walls. Nuclear weapons pretty much make armor irrelevant. And if all we had to fight a war was ford escorts and bicycles, that's what we'd have to do. As far as bulletproof vests, it's a misnomer. It's actually "body armor" because there is no such thing as a bulletproof vest. A 30-06 can shoot through 3 feet of oak. A 12.7 mm round from a DShK heavy machine gun will punch through body armor without slowing down much. So, yes, we want soldiers to wear their body armor because it will protect them against small arms fire and small pieces of shrapnel, but no one is fooled into believing that any bullet will magically bounce off. When you're hit, it hurts regardless of what you're shot with. It's likely to break a rib, but it's better than nothing, except when it's 110 degrees outside.

quote:
To send a soldier to battle without armor because he/she is going to get shot or blown up anyway is total disrespect.


This is about the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. All my soldiers were precious to me; however, they were not mine to save or give up. Sending people into harm's way is the most agonizing, gut-wrenching thing anyone can ever do. You look at the people assigned to you and realize some of them will die. Is it disrespectful for me to risk soldier's lives to recover another soldier's corpse? You have absolutely no comprehension of what it's like to be a soldier or an officer commanding soldiers. Your son is a marine, and God bless him. He had to volunteer, and convince the marines he was committed. But I'm grateful that a person like you is not leading them. Stay home and whine and complain; let the soldiers take soldier's risks and gain the self respect and pride due them from their service.
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:

Yes, we have tanks. There are a lot of reasons we didn't use them. As I said before, Humvees are jeep replacements. Their vulnerability makes them convenient targets. We have vehicles that have better armor now.

.



I know that we have tanks but what you don't seem to understand is that we have humvees with no armor and we have humvees with armor. If you send our troops to drive around the streets of Iraq with th armored humvees then they would have had a better chance of surviving an IED.



.
quote:
To use the excuse that things and people are going to get blown up no matter how much armor we have is irresponsible. You might as well say that they don't need to wear bullet proof vests untill someone shots at them and the type of bullet is determined. If they are going to get blown up anyway, as you say, then we might as well have sent them out there in Ford escorts or bicycles to save on fuel costs.


quote:
Irresponsible if you have no background in military history; realistic if you do. It's why we don't have castles anymore...the explosive shells breached castle walls. Nuclear weapons pretty much make armor irrelevant. And if all we had to fight a war was ford escorts and bicycles, that's what we'd have to do. As far as bulletproof vests, it's a misnomer. It's actually "body armor" because there is no such thing as a bulletproof vest. A 30-06 can shoot through 3 feet of oak. A 12.7 mm round from a DShK heavy machine gun will punch through body armor without slowing down much. So, yes, we want soldiers to wear their body armor because it will protect them against small arms fire and small pieces of shrapnel, but no one is fooled into believing that any bullet will magically bounce off. When you're hit, it hurts regardless of what you're shot with. It's likely to break a rib, but it's better than nothing, except when it's 110 degrees outside.




So are you saying that you are free to act irresponsibly and expose our troops as long as you have a background in the military? That is nothing but hogwash and you know it. I thank tyou for your service and I am in debt to you for it but that does not give you or our President the right to act irresposibally and unnecessarily subject our troops to the dangers of battle and war.

Not to give our troops the proper protection from bullets and shrapnel because nothing we have can protect them from a nuclear is as dumb a statement as you have ever made. That is like saying that i,m not going to make my child wear a coat in the winter time because he is probably going to get cold anyway.

The fact that our troops would fight a war in Ford escorts and bicycles is what makes our soldiers great. No matter what the situation that they are given they always charge on. Our soldiers are the greatest in the world but just because they will fight proudly without armor doen't mean that they should. We owe it to aour troops to provide them with the needed protection to aid them in their missions and help increase the odds of them to one day return home to their families.

So you say that its ok to supply our troops with bullet proof vests (body armor) for small caliber bullets and shrapnel but its not ok to send them on a drive through the streets of Iraq with armored vehicles.



.

quote:
To send a soldier to battle without armor because he/she is going to get shot or blown up anyway is total disrespect.


quote:
This is about the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. All my soldiers were precious to me; however, they were not mine to save or give up. Sending people into harm's way is the most agonizing, gut-wrenching thing anyone can ever do. You look at the people assigned to you and realize some of them will die. Is it disrespectful for me to risk soldier's lives to recover another soldier's corpse? You have absolutely no comprehension of what it's like to be a soldier or an officer commanding soldiers. Your son is a marine, and God bless him. He had to volunteer, and convince the marines he was committed. But I'm grateful that a person like you is not leading them. Stay home and whine and complain; let the soldiers take soldier's risks and gain the self respect and pride due them from their service.



This may be the most idiotic thing that you have ever heard but it is what you are saying. So since you think its the most idiotic thing that you hve ever heard and not the most idiotic thing that you have ever said then I would love to hear what you think is the most idiotic thing that you have ever said.
Last edited by DILLY
Dilly I think you should stop reading leftists sites and do a little research by respected athorities.I suggest you pick up any book by Stephen Ambrose.He will give you a real close up history of the military(Especially during WWII)Then pick up the book Moment Of Truth in Iraq by Michael Yon.He will give you a no nonsense,totally unbiased view of the war in Iraq.But start with Ambrose who was a very accomplished historian.
Dilly,

Congratulations on totally ignoring what was explained to you, while continuing in the same vein – a trait of the true believer unfazed by facts. Jim Jones had a number of persons like yourself.

The invasion of Iraq was configured to meet a nation/state military, not the partisan warfare that developed. Tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and cavalry fighting vehicles were the armored portions of the force. Only a few uparmored humvees were included, because, best estimate, that was all that was needed.

That uparmored humvees and numerous other items were developed and fielded in record time is a testament to the adaptability of the US military and our defense industry -- no other nation could have adapted so quickly.
Dilly,
"Rumsfeld response was very close to what you have said, wich is total bull crap "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want or wish to have at a later time.""
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rumsfeld was quoting an old military maxim I’ve heard for over 37 years in the military, as a civilian working for DOD, and now, as a contractor involved with sales of weapons and military equipment overseas.

At the start of WWI, the first order given British troops was to, “sharpen sabers!” Not, that swords, did much against Maxim machines guns, but it was what the military of the day knew.

In WWII, US troops used gasoline powered Sherman tanks, which gained the nickname “Ronsons” because, like the lighter they lit up every time the tanks were hit. Diesel powered tanks would have been better. Similarly, half tracks were insufficiently armored to provide protection against german ammunition. To retool and produce better items would set the war effort back. Nazis didn’t give time outs.

Perhaps, you might post a diatribe against General Catlett Marshall and FDR, after the one against General Lord Haig, of course.

In my own experience in Nam, we uparmored deuce and a half trucks on our own and added dual and quad fifty calibers. Field expedients to meet the threat.

Now, go learn something and quite bothering the adults.
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Dilly knows more about military activities than a retired military officer with nearly 30 years of experience and four wars behind him. To be fair, Dilly claims to have a son who is a marine in Iraq, and can be excused for a lack of objectivity.

Michael Yon also has his own blogsite, which is a very good look at the operations in Iraq.


Zipp,

I'm not sure where you got the idea or read that I have a son in Iraq because I don't. I don't even have a son in the marines. If there is anywhere on this sight that I said something to make you think that I have a son in the Marines serving in Iraq I would like for you to show it to me. I think that you may have me mixed up with someone else. If you did get this information from me then I would like to be able to address it because I certainly don't want to mislead you or anyone else. So please help me understand where you got this information so that I can set the record straight.
Last edited by DILLY
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Dilly knows more about military activities than a retired military officer with nearly 30 years of experience and four wars behind him. To be fair, Dilly claims to have a son who is a marine in Iraq, and can be excused for a lack of objectivity.

Michael Yon also has his own blogsite, which is a very good look at the operations in Iraq.


Zipp,

I appreciate your service in the military and am grateful for your sacrifices. To have served in four wars classifies you as a hero in my book. I hope that you don't think that just because we don't see eye to eye that I don't respect what you or any other soldier has done for me and my country. Today is Thanksgiving and I will be thanking God for you and others like you.

I don't claim to know more about military activities than anyone but when a mistake has been made it is easy to see, even by someone as dumb as me. Bush has mismanaged this war from the beginning. I think that he thought that this was going to be easy so he didn't want to take the time to analyze the situation. We were not forced into war with Iraq, we went on our own choice for unknown reasons, therefore we could have taken a little more time to prepare ourselves instead of running into the line of fire totally exposed.
quote:
Originally posted by Zeb:
John McCain his entire career imo has done what he perceives is best for his country until he **** on EVERY American by choosing Sarah Palin, McCain is a intelligent man and knew she was not qualified but he **** on us all, I mention this because i am still angry it borders on treason it was total betrayal,I know millions of Americans from both parties lost a lot of respect when he ****ed our great country


TREASON?! You sir, have hit your head and are talking like an idiot. Surely, anyone with an ounce of brain would realize what real treason is. I hope you get to feeling better.
Getting back to the original subject, I think that McCain picked Palin as his running mate for one reason , to get the Hillary supporters. Sarah, bless her heart, just wasn't ready. If some how, thank goodness it didn't happen, McCain would have won then what do you think his cabinet would be like. If he can't pick a qualified VP then there would be no way in heck he could pick a qualified staff and cabinet. I bet he would have tried to put Ronald McDonald in there somewhere just to get the support of the kids.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×