Skip to main content

Do you guys remember a couple of weeks ago when yall said that I didn't know what I was talking about when it came to the Iraq war because I didn't have any military experience? Do you remember when I was criticizing President Bush for sending our troops to Iraq without the proper armor and you guys said that I was wrong. Well here is some more proof that I was right.


Link



The article released by the Pentagon states that we knew of the threat posed by roadside bombs before the start of the Iraq war but did nothing to buy protective vehicles for the troops.



The report found that the Department of Defense knew before the war started in 2003 of the threats of mines and roadside bombs in Iraq but did nothing to acquire MRAPs (Mine Resistant Ambush-Protected vehicles) ahead of the invasion. Hundreds of deaths and injuries could have been prevented.


It is a shame how our brave troops were treated during this war. They were thrown into this war unprepared when they could have very easily been prepared. This is the ultimate disrespect of our troops. To be treated this way for a war that we don't even know why we are fighting is nothing but wrong!!!!!
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

From the same article.


In response to the report, Marine Corps spokesman Maj. David Nevers pointed out the inspector general found no "evidence of criminal negligence" in the Corps' actions.

The decision to buy the up-armored Humvee model, he said, was made "consciously by the Marine Corps leadership because of its proven capability to protect and its tactical utility; the survivability and mobility demanded by the Marines in theater; and its availability, based on an active, responsive production line."

"The Marine Corps fully cooperated with [inspector general] during this audit," Nevers said. "We are reviewing the report to ensure that our processes best support the war fighter in theater."
The present uparmored version did not exist in 2003. The army had to design an entire new vehicle with larger engine and sturdier drive train and suspension.

MRAP is an entirely new vehicle, designed from on the spot experience.

Again, will Dilly publish an excoriating expose of the Sherman tank and the half track and name FDR and General Marshall as co-conspirators for sending US soldiers out in such death traps. Don't even mention the jeep, the HUMVEE's predecessor, which was never armored, tipped over at speeds over 35 MPH and never had a roll bar.
Dilly, you should be proud of yourself.

But until you have had military experience, you can only rant. You go to war with what you have, not what you want. Often times, what you have is driven more by politics than by military necessity.

Admittedly, we in the AF have been somewhat dim (IMHO) for continuing to develop a hugely expensive fighter without any real operational need for it. Air superiority against AQ? Hardly an issue. But the military is full of smart people who are dedicated to their country and push things the way they should go.

Understand, however, that the funding cycle for a new program (like an up-armored Humvee) is about five years long, and that is due to Congress. If I want to deploy a new vehicle, it MAY be on contract in five years. That's the price you pay for the level of governmental oversight we endure. And let's not even discuss the annual funding battles. Due to governmental oversight, it takes us nearly 15 years, from concept to deployment, to get a new satellite system into orbit. DirecTV can do it in less than a year.

We don't want our soldiers, sailors, and airmen to die. We recognize they will, but we don't regard them as cannon fodder the way the rulers of the Napoleonic era did. We do the very best we can with what we have, and we continually look toward ways of improving the capability to do our mission and to bring our soldiers home, alive and whole.
quote:
Originally posted by Backwoods:
quote:
Is our gov`t neglecting the troops because we havn`t gotten one yet.Should we blame Bush for this?


Yes!!!You know everything is Bush's fault.Why I've had a sinus infection for 3 weeks because of him.And his poor handling of this rain storm has caused my yard to flood.




This is HIS war and he is COMMANDER IN CHIEF. So yes I think that Bush is the right person to blame here.
quote:
Originally posted by DILLY:
quote:
Originally posted by Backwoods:
quote:
Is our gov`t neglecting the troops because we havn`t gotten one yet.Should we blame Bush for this?


Yes!!!You know everything is Bush's fault.Why I've had a sinus infection for 3 weeks because of him.And his poor handling of this rain storm has caused my yard to flood.




This is HIS war and he is COMMANDER IN CHIEF. So yes I think that Bush is the right person to blame here.


This is America's war and we haven't been attacked in this country since it started.Did you not catch Geddons remark about Govt.(read congress)red tape.The same side of the aisle hollering about Bush sending our troops into war without the proper protection are the same "winners" wanting to cut funding to the military.
quote:
Originally posted by DILLY:
quote:
Originally posted by Backwoods:
quote:
Is our gov`t neglecting the troops because we havn`t gotten one yet.Should we blame Bush for this?


Yes!!!You know everything is Bush's fault.Why I've had a sinus infection for 3 weeks because of him.And his poor handling of this rain storm has caused my yard to flood.




This is HIS war and he is COMMANDER IN CHIEF. So yes I think that Bush is the right person to blame here.


I keep waiting for the libs to go back and ostracise Kennedy and Johnson for Viet Nam, which had no real goals, cost over 10 times the lives of American soldiers, and who put into effect a socialist plan that continually threatens to bankrupt us.

But I know that will never happen.
quote:
Originally posted by CrustyMac:
I keep waiting for the libs to go back and ostracise Kennedy and Johnson for Viet Nam, which had no real goals, cost over 10 times the lives of American soldiers, and who put into effect a socialist plan that continually threatens to bankrupt us.

But I know that will never happen.


Of course not. They will never turn on their own kind.
quote:
Originally posted by CrustyMac:
quote:
Originally posted by DILLY:
quote:
Originally posted by Backwoods:
quote:
Is our gov`t neglecting the troops because we havn`t gotten one yet.Should we blame Bush for this?


Yes!!!You know everything is Bush's fault.Why I've had a sinus infection for 3 weeks because of him.And his poor handling of this rain storm has caused my yard to flood.




This is HIS war and he is COMMANDER IN CHIEF. So yes I think that Bush is the right person to blame here.


I keep waiting for the libs to go back and ostracise Kennedy and Johnson for Viet Nam, which had no real goals, cost over 10 times the lives of American soldiers, and who put into effect a socialist plan that continually threatens to bankrupt us.

But I know that will never happen.


Yet we have had 5 Republican Presidents since Johnson, and none of them really did anything to reverse the "socialist plan" supposedly started by Johnson. Even with the help of a Republican majority in congress nothing changed. Whats up with that?
Easy answer for that one, mean.

Any attempt to reverse the entitlements that this country has become so spoiled with over the past few decades would get them voted out of office quicker than even an issue like Iraq.

A democratic society doesn't vote to reverse a socialistic trend. It simply builds slowly and incrementally over time as one crisis after another provides solid reasoning for the government to take more and more control. And people feel safe, feel provided for.

You see how politicians who advocate privatizing Social Security get treated. You'd think they were attempting to drown puppies with the kind of reaction that the voting public provides to ANY attempt to make government smaller and cost less.

Earmarks, federal grants, social programs, etc. These are what get politicians elected. The voters in this country want to know what you can do for them.

Far from Kennedy's ideal of "ask what you can do for your country."

So Republicans may be philosophically against larger and larger socialistic trends. But they also know that unpopular positions will just simply result in losing seats back to the Democratic party.

And so, the nanny state marches on. Slowly convincing us that it knows best, especially when things go wrong and we get scared.
quote:
Originally posted by SardonicPoet:
Easy answer for that one, mean.

Any attempt to reverse the entitlements that this country has become so spoiled with over the past few decades would get them voted out of office quicker than even an issue like Iraq.

A democratic society doesn't vote to reverse a socialistic trend. It simply builds slowly and incrementally over time as one crisis after another provides solid reasoning for the government to take more and more control. And people feel safe, feel provided for.

You see how politicians who advocate privatizing Social Security get treated. You'd think they were attempting to drown puppies with the kind of reaction that the voting public provides to ANY attempt to make government smaller and cost less.

Earmarks, federal grants, social programs, etc. These are what get politicians elected. The voters in this country want to know what you can do for them.

Far from Kennedy's ideal of "ask what you can do for your country."

So Republicans may be philosophically against larger and larger socialistic trends. But they also know that unpopular positions will just simply result in losing seats back to the Democratic party.

And so, the nanny state marches on. Slowly convincing us that it knows best, especially when things go wrong and we get scared.


Please offer me an example of any "state" which operates purely based on your ideal philosophy. Not a historic model - a successful, thriving model of a democratic society on which you base your economic and social picture of perfection. In my view, we build on what works and survives (survival of the fittest, if you will).
Last edited by meanasasnake
If I'd thrown a shoe at that SOB, he wouldn't have been able to duck in time. He IS responsible for this war, he is responsible for the deaths of our troops, and he will rot in hell for it. This war was started for oil. He didn't give one flip about protecting our troops. PLAIN and SIMPLE. Guess I'll go dust off my passport since I'm certain I'll be told to leave the country now. Roll Eyes
quote:
Originally posted by CrustyMac:
quote:
Originally posted by DILLY:
quote:
Originally posted by Backwoods:
quote:
Is our gov`t neglecting the troops because we havn`t gotten one yet.Should we blame Bush for this?


Yes!!!You know everything is Bush's fault.Why I've had a sinus infection for 3 weeks because of him.And his poor handling of this rain storm has caused my yard to flood.




This is HIS war and he is COMMANDER IN CHIEF. So yes I think that Bush is the right person to blame here.


I keep waiting for the libs to go back and ostracise Kennedy and Johnson for Viet Nam, which had no real goals, cost over 10 times the lives of American soldiers, and who put into effect a socialist plan that continually threatens to bankrupt us.

But I know that will never happen.




Here we go again, another rightwinger having to go back 50 years to dig something up just to get the attention off of the failures of the current administration. Looking back through history, Crusty, it is obvious that many liberals and conservatives were not at all happy with the direction that the war in Vietnam was going. So if it makes you feel better, then yes I agree that the Vietnam war was a disaster. So now I guess your wait is over.
Lady Snake,

quote:
Please offer me an example of any "state" which operates purely based on your ideal philosophy. Not a historic model - a successful, thriving model of a democratic society on which you base your economic and social picture of perfection. In my view, we build on what works and survives (survival of the fittest, if you will).



Switzerland, aka Confederation of Helvetia.
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
Lady Snake,

quote:
Please offer me an example of any "state" which operates purely based on your ideal philosophy. Not a historic model - a successful, thriving model of a democratic society on which you base your economic and social picture of perfection. In my view, we build on what works and survives (survival of the fittest, if you will).



Switzerland, aka Confederation of Helvetia.


Howard, Nevermind that Switzerland has about 1/10 of the U.S. Population, and according to what I have found online: "Switzerland's social welfare system is comprehensive and contains provisions for free subsidized health care, including maternity benefits. The state also provides old-age pensions and long-term nursing care. The cantons share with the federal government and the trade unions the costs of the welfare system."

And:

Real growth of the economy has been 1.3 percent per year on average (per capita growth has been about half that), while other developed nations have managed to grow about 20 percent faster.


Government absorbed most of the real growth in the economy; as a result, ordinary people have received no gain in personal income for at least a decade.

The impetus for this change has been the creation of an extensive welfare state, over-burdensome regulation and high taxes, says Price. For example:


Social Security contributions as a percent of total taxation has risen from 29 percent in 1975 to 34 percent in 2000.


Taxes as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) have grown faster in Switzerland than anywhere else in the developed world, rising from 22 percent in 1980 to 36 percent of GDP in 2000.


Clearly the ideal free market state of Switzerland is quickly becoming less of an ideal. Again, it amounts to the survival of what democratic societies want. If Switzerland is your only example of the Western ideal - then your philosophy is losing ground.
quote:
Originally posted by SaltyDog:
If I'd thrown a shoe at that SOB, he wouldn't have been able to duck in time. He IS responsible for this war, he is responsible for the deaths of our troops, and he will rot in hell for it. This war was started for oil. He didn't give one flip about protecting our troops. PLAIN and SIMPLE. Guess I'll go dust off my passport since I'm certain I'll be told to leave the country now. Roll Eyes


You probably won't be told, but since you seem to want to, I'd suggest one of the middle eastern sultanates. Or maybe France. They can't think straight, either.
quote:
Originally posted by SaltyDog:
If I'd thrown a shoe at that SOB, he wouldn't have been able to duck in time. He IS responsible for this war, he is responsible for the deaths of our troops, and he will rot in hell for it. This war was started for oil. He didn't give one flip about protecting our troops. PLAIN and SIMPLE. Guess I'll go dust off my passport since I'm certain I'll be told to leave the country now. Roll Eyes



Such hatred for a man protecting our country.I don't agree with everything Bush has done,not even close,but I do think he cares about the safety of this country.If he was so bad to the troops,why did they vote so overwhelmingly for him over Lurch Kerry?

P.S.

Now you can leave!
quote:
Originally posted by Backwoods:
quote:
Originally posted by SaltyDog:
If I'd thrown a shoe at that SOB, he wouldn't have been able to duck in time. He IS responsible for this war, he is responsible for the deaths of our troops, and he will rot in hell for it. This war was started for oil. He didn't give one flip about protecting our troops. PLAIN and SIMPLE. Guess I'll go dust off my passport since I'm certain I'll be told to leave the country now. Roll Eyes



Such hatred for a man protecting our country.I don't agree with everything Bush has done,not even close,but I do think he cares about the safety of this country.If he was so bad to the troops,why did they vote so overwhelmingly for him over Lurch Kerry?

P.S.

Now you can leave!



Why, indeed? I even voted for him once myself. You know what they say about hindsight, dont you?

P.S. On second thought, I think I'll just wait the jackal out! Razzer
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
Lady Snake,

quote:
Please offer me an example of any "state" which operates purely based on your ideal philosophy. Not a historic model - a successful, thriving model of a democratic society on which you base your economic and social picture of perfection. In my view, we build on what works and survives (survival of the fittest, if you will).



Switzerland, aka Confederation of Helvetia.


Howard, Nevermind that Switzerland has about 1/10 of the U.S. Population, and according to what I have found online: "Switzerland's social welfare system is comprehensive and contains provisions for free subsidized health care, including maternity benefits. The state also provides old-age pensions and long-term nursing care. The cantons share with the federal government and the trade unions the costs of the welfare system."

And:

Real growth of the economy has been 1.3 percent per year on average (per capita growth has been about half that), while other developed nations have managed to grow about 20 percent faster.


Government absorbed most of the real growth in the economy; as a result, ordinary people have received no gain in personal income for at least a decade.

The impetus for this change has been the creation of an extensive welfare state, over-burdensome regulation and high taxes, says Price. For example:


Social Security contributions as a percent of total taxation has risen from 29 percent in 1975 to 34 percent in 2000.


Taxes as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) have grown faster in Switzerland than anywhere else in the developed world, rising from 22 percent in 1980 to 36 percent of GDP in 2000.


Clearly the ideal free market state of Switzerland is quickly becoming less of an ideal. Again, it amounts to the survival of what democratic societies want. If Switzerland is your only example of the Western ideal - then your philosophy is losing ground.



OOOOHHHHH smokin!

Don't forget those swiss like that stolen nazi money.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:

Yet we have had 5 Republican Presidents since Johnson, and none of them really did anything to reverse the "socialist plan" supposedly started by Johnson. Even with the help of a Republican majority in congress nothing changed. Whats up with that?


Well, let's just have a look-see. Kennedy and more importantly, Johnson created a welfare system that in less than 20 years was already looking to bankrupt us. Democrat majority for both.

Nixon - well he did some good things, and some bad things. He got whacked with the energy crisis and the debt-run up to pay for Vietnam. He took some drastic measures to try and bring things under control, some good, some not so good. Democrat Majority.

Ford - too little time to do much about the economy, had a lot to do healing the country and keeping Chevy Chase entertained. Democrat majority.

Carter - completely ineffective with the economy. Runaway inflation - 21%. The situation was so bad, Wall Street forced Carter to appoint Paul Volcker as Federal Reserve Chairman (thank God). My dad paid 50% Federal Income tax the last year Carter was in office. He had made $100,000 for the first time. A new term was coined "stagflation". Democrat majority.

Reagan - Restructured and cut taxes, allowed (Volcker had a free hand)interest rates to soar in order to pull in inflation, cut back a lot of Federal programs. A few years of interest rate pain set into motion one of the longest, strongest periods of prosperity the US has enjoyed. Democrat majority.

Bush - pretty much stayed the course, though he was forced to raise taxes (on everyone, not just the middle class by Congress). Democrat majority.

Clinton - has the first balanced budget in decades, because tax revenue was so high, because of the great economcy. REPUBLICAN majority.

Bush - things good. Republican majority that spends like the Democrats. Expensive war. Democrats gain majority. Spend like Democrats.


Only six years where we had both a Republican President and a Republican Congress, and the taxpayer was betrayed by both. What can I say?
quote:
Originally posted by DILLY:



Here we go again, another rightwinger having to go back 50 years to dig something up just to get the attention off of the failures of the current administration. Looking back through history, Crusty, it is obvious that many liberals and conservatives were not at all happy with the direction that the war in Vietnam was going. So if it makes you feel better, then yes I agree that the Vietnam war was a disaster. So now I guess your wait is over.


Good for you, Dilly. I've been putting you in the same category as the others who say that Bush is the worst president ever, based on the Iraq War. I'll readjust my thinking.

As to the "rightwingers", yes I guess I am one. I supported the war, am still hoping for a winning outcome, and don't believe that it is a complete waste. There are defined goals, the commanders on the ground are left to do their job, and contrary to what is reported by CNN and the networks, there is a lot of good happening there.

None of this was true in Vietnam, and mostly because Johnson thought of himself as some kind of Stalinesque being. By the time troops were pulled out of Vietnam no-one outside of the the government was for the war.

I think you will find that Bush takes responsiblity for the war, as any good Commander in Chief would. But let's give members of Congress their due, they have paid for the war, and have done nothing but whined about it, even though they gained the majority based on a platform that included a quick end to the war.

Even Obama won't pull us out before 2010.

Am I disappointed in Bush? Yes. But for those that call him the worst president EVER, they really don't know even fairly recent history.
quote:
Originally posted by SaltyDog:
If I'd thrown a shoe at that SOB, he wouldn't have been able to duck in time. He IS responsible for this war, he is responsible for the deaths of our troops, and he will rot in hell for it. This war was started for oil. He didn't give one flip about protecting our troops. PLAIN and SIMPLE. Guess I'll go dust off my passport since I'm certain I'll be told to leave the country now. Roll Eyes


I'll come to the airport to wave you a fond fairwell. I'm thinking you will like France. They have ignored their terrorist problems.
quote:
Originally posted by CrustyMac:
quote:
Originally posted by DILLY:



Here we go again, another rightwinger having to go back 50 years to dig something up just to get the attention off of the failures of the current administration. Looking back through history, Crusty, it is obvious that many liberals and conservatives were not at all happy with the direction that the war in Vietnam was going. So if it makes you feel better, then yes I agree that the Vietnam war was a disaster. So now I guess your wait is over.


Good for you, Dilly. I've been putting you in the same category as the others who say that Bush is the worst president ever, based on the Iraq War. I'll readjust my thinking.




People who say that Bush is the worst president ever have a good argument for more reasons than just the Iraq war. This is an argument that will go on for a long long time. However, no one will ever argue that he has been the best President or even a good one because he hasn't. Bush may or may not have been the worst president ever, but he sure is in the running for it.

Add Reply

Post

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