Printable View
http://www.credoaction.com/comics/TM...17original.jpg
Conservatives who don't watch the Daily Show might have missed the little gem that Stewart showed from the Glen Beck show, where the pundit said that Osama needed to nuke an American city to get us "back on track", and Beck nodded his head about that probably being a good thing.
WTF?
Yay politics!
Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit..Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
You're on a roll lately.
What's the deal? You leave for a few weeks and then come back with this kind of weak shit?
You're better than that.
Doesn't surprise me.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Yay my side; screw yours has a powerful pull to it.
Dems rooted for bad economic news and bad news from Iraq during Bush's term; now Republicans quote bad employment figures with a gleam in their eye toward November '10 - and quietly hope that "we get hit again".
And why not? Look at how well the bad news, and economic collapse worked out for the Dems; they now have a near bullet-proof majority, and are on track to pass legislation that is FAR to the left of what the President ran on, and what the American public has indicated it wants (gotta get it done this year, because next year is an election year, and people can remember what you did to them for at least a couple of months).
Strangely enough, when John O'Neil was at the FBI trying to warn everyone about Al Qaeda, people thought he was being overly paranoid. Ironically, he left the FBI in 2001 and took a job as head of security at the WTC, where he died on 9/11.
Doesn't everyone wish that the Clinton and Bush admins had taken Al Qaeda more seriously before 9/11?
Please God, don't let mouse read this post, Please God, don't let mouse read this post, Please God, don't let mouse read this post, Please God, don't let mouse read this post, ....Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Pow! Right in the kisser.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
I was always desperately hoping that good news would come out of Iraq and the economy.
The difference between the two is that the Bush adminsitration had a LOT of control in Iraq and not so much for the economy.
Which makes the first few years in Iraq so damning. Any real objective look at that period makes it very clear who was reasonably responsible for what.
It was definitely not schadenfreude *I* felt when watching the daily grind of US troop casualties mount because of the sheer ineptitude of the Bush administration's handling of the situation.
That and the Katrina response sealed the "bumbling incompetant" narrative for the Bush adminsitration.
Been Busy. Speaking of which, back to work. :depressedQuote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
And I don't root for another million people to be laid off; there are exceptions to the rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
If, however, you don't think certain posters believed different than you then, and me now, you aren't paying attention. And on the national level; well we could both name politicians from the "other" side that are damn near cheerleaders for bad things happening when they are out of power.
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
.................................................. ........:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin x1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Just when I thought you couldn't possibly out-douchebag yourself...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
I have said quite explicitly in this forum that I truly wished the administration would be competant enough to handle the Iraq occupation better, in order to reduce the endless stream of US fatalities.
I repeatedly criticized the handling of the war as ignoring the army's own counter-insurgency doctrine, however.
Astonishingly enough, after 3 or 4 years they started doing the things I said they should have been doing for years and it worked. Hell, I even gave Bush some credit for the change in tactics/strategy that accompanied the surge.
If you think that I EVER in ANY way wished that our troops would have to suffer so that my "side" would gain politically, you can fuck off, you pathetic douchebaggy, piece of shit.
It was frustrating as all hell to see the admistration fucking up for years, and douchebags like you defending the adminsitration for NO other reason than because he was on YOUR "side".
If ANYBODY sought poltical gains from our troops dying it was assholes like yourself who ignored the body counts and never ONCE asked of your president that he really take the time to get a good strategy. Instead you blindly aped the "stay the course" mantra, until Bush had the good sense to do a comprehensive strategy review and make changes, albeit 4 years too late.
And what is your take on that?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
The Bush administration was very clearly responsible for the get-go for not understanding what would happen after they deposed Saddam, and not following their own counter-insurgency doctrine.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
They literally had NO plan for post-war occupation, and that negligence directly caused thousands of our troops to die needlessly.
You are absolutely wrong. They knew the current situation could happen in their various outcome assessments. They bet on things going better.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Instead of preparing for foreseeable outcomes, they bet things would *go better*.
That's some pretty fancy war planning.
I've come to hope for the best and expect the worse as far as the country is concerned. Partisans hoping that the country declines to further their agenda should tell us something about the true character of partisan politics, as well as just what kind of power is really at stake. I know I expect certain things to happen due to the current track of the federal government, but I do hope against hope it doesn't happen.
Of course, the country consists of more than just the federal government, though oddly that distinction has long since left us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
I meant for specifically who was to blame with my question. I don't agree that they had NO plan for postwar occupation. The generals certainlly did. The person I would specifically place the blame on is that idiot Paul Bremmer and his decision to disband the Iraqi army against the generals advice. Of course you can extend the blame for that decision upstream through Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush but if I had to pick one person who's incompetence caused the most damage in post invasion Iraq it would be Bremmer.
And they made no contingencies for any other outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Bremmer wasn't the first person they appointed for the occupation.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
And why couldn't his order to disband the army simply be stopped or reversed by Rumsfeld or Bush? You're saying that Bremmer was beyond their control.
No I'm not saying that at all. Just to avoid the standard dem/repub arguments on this subject I'll be clear...I blame the decision to go to war on bad intelligence combined with a desire to do it by the administration. I make no excuses (and never have) for the terrible management of the war and that blame ultimately lies with Bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
RG said he knew who was responsible for the way things went. I just asked for specifics on who he thought was most to blame. Saying it was the Bush administration is pretty generic. It was a long time ago so the details may be off a bit but I saw a show on Bremmer's decision and it wasn't clear if Bush was even involved in making the decision. From what I recall it was Bremmer and Rumsfeld who made the call. Generals and some within administration only found out about it after the fact through the media. That doesn't absolve Bush in anyway, he backed the decision whether he made the call or not.
http://www.post-gazette.com/images4/...Withdrawal.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
Revisionism at it's finest. You never fail to fail.
Do you want me to post all of the "we'll be out in months, tops" quotes from the administration during the pre-war run up?
Seriously, your selective memory astounds me.
Why would Bush be out of the loop on such a critical decision?Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
That makes no sense.
Saying he had nothing to do with the decision is worse than saying he just made a shitty decision.
I would start most primarily with Cheney.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
You know, the guy who was the Secretary of Defense in the first Gulf War, and who very clearly, in defending the senior Bush's decision, rather accurately predicted what would happen after Saddam got toppled:
I would say that he probably controlled some of the information going into the oval office, and let GW think that it woudl be a walk in the park, when he knew better so as not to let GW hestiate about heading in.
I think GW's general ignorance of the rest of the world and modern military affairs in general contributed greatly as well.
The administration in general, in terms of the right-wing ideologues who made up the bulk of the rank and file of the administration of the time tended to know almost nothing about the country they were in charge of running.
There seemed to be some minor contingency planning on the part of the military, but even the senior levels of the miliatary seemed intent on making the same tactical mistakes of Vietnam.
Fuck, are we still talking about IRaq?
In short it was a systemic administration failure, that started most importantly with the guy in charge, GW Bush.
The tone at the top will heavily influence the culture of any human organization.
The depths of ignorance and valuing ideological purity over competance was the tone at the top, and that reverbrated with deadly effect on the streets and roads of Iraq.
In case you haven't noticed, we will have tens of thousands of troops deployed there.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Thanks for caring/paying attention. ;)
We're still there, aren't we?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
The OP was a cartoon. Would you rather discuss that?
Yes it is. This is what I recall seeing on the show. I don't remember the name of it, something my wife had taped or rented. She turned on Bush/Rumsfeld sooner then I did. Took me a little longer to believe they could be so incompetent in managing the war. Anyway, it seemed well researched. I do recall one general on it saying that he was under the impression from a meeting just days earlier that they (the generals & Bremer) had agreed not to disband the army and then boom he heard the news.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
It really wouldn't surprise me if Bush didn't know. It's well known that his management style is to pick the right people and then let them make the calls. No a bad approach if you pick the right people, he didn't. I also recall something from Woodward about Bush being annoyed by having to deal with the details of managing the war and at one point losing his temper and yelling "Fuck, I have other things to do!".
If you want to go a little more in depth, I recommend reading Tom Ricks' Fiasco. You can get used copies for two bucks online. I just started reading his book on the surge.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Ultimately no one above Bremmer wants to have anything to do with that decision, but I find it hard to believe that they would just leave it up to him.
My memory is not selective. There was an article a few years ago I remember reading that one scenario they realized was a long war. Just because they chose to publicly state otherwise doesn't mean they didn't consider it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
I pray to God the Dems can magically fix the economy with their "stimulus."
The problem is that's like praying that shooting a loaded gun into my face won't kill me.
Neither political party controls that much of anything anyway. Its already painfully obvious just by following whats going on. I don't know if people who don't pay attention will ever catch on.
Maybe our banker overlords will be nice enough to give us another decade of prosperity.
Cap and trade is probably the next great bubble. If its not I'm sure something else is waiting in the wings.
I really think Bush, in other circumstances, would have been one of those great tragic figures that famous plays are written about.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
We have a man here whose father was President, striving to be a President himself. One who was smart enough to graduate prestigious colleges, one who can fly a plane, yet portrays himself as the country bumpkin in public. Sometimes I think of him just as a man who made a few wrong decisions, and those wrong decisions were pulling down everything else. Like an alcoholic that can't get off the sauce, his Presidency spiraled downwards as more and more situations grew too large for him to handle, and he kept throwing out the wrong answers.
I think how quiet he has been since he left the Presidency is a true reflection of Bush. I do think he did what he thought it took to make this country safe, the best that he could. I don't think he did a good job, or took the correct ways to do it, but I don't think he was acting maliciously.
I feel kinda bad for him, to be honest.
Bush's two biggest weaknesses to me were his poor judgment concerning his advisers (which also freaks me out about Obama and his choices for cabinet positions), and his stubbornness. In a different situation, Bush's stubbornness would have been great but in the situation that we had, agile decision making was required. He wasn't capable of that as far as I can tell.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
You do realize there is a distinction between realizing the possibility exists, and actively providing a contingency plan for it, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Simply realizing there is a chance for something happening that could kill thousands of your own servicemembers IS NOT ENOUGH.
As a Commander-in-Chief You have a sacred duty to do some contingency planning to minimize the risks involved in that percieved possibility.
The fact that they considered the possibility itself says that they are guilty of sheer criminal negligence, because they obviously had no plan.
You just don't get responsible risk management, do you?
They had contingency plans, but things just didn't work right. Nobody's perfect. It is a sad thing that things occurred like they did. I don't have enough details to say much more. I can say from 11 years experience in the Army that we would have never gone in until after things were thought out as well as they could be, for the information at hand. Too bad the CIA was crippled by the previous administration, and we couldn't get reliable intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
I would add that I firmly believe the war would have been over allot sooner in the liberals never gave Al-Qaeda the moral support they did. My god. they badtalked us so bad, it gave them moral strength.
Fucking traitors.
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Tell me, oh great patriot, when did the process for procuring more armored humvees and body armor start, before or after the ground war?
Fucktard.
What were the contingency plans?On what? Yellowcake?Quote:
Too bad the CIA was crippled by the previous administration, and we couldn't get reliable intel.
I firmly believe you're an idiot. The insurgency began because we stupidly disbanded the army and fired anyone who actually had any experience running the country.Quote:
I would add that I firmly believe the war would have been over allot sooner in the liberals never gave Al-Qaeda the moral support they did.
What was the contingency for that?
I would add that morons like you who obviously have no understanding of the issue, and who blindly followed and supported criminal negligence because of some emotional need to feel superior to people they disagree, can be much more readily accused of outright treason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The fact is that the policies you support tend to give much more direct support to the Al Qaeda ideology than any "liberal" criticism of the president.
I firmly believe, and can actually prove that, unlike yourself.
I suppose you think a war must wait until the current administration spends money on something that the past administration didn't...Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Any idea how large of a task that was to make all that armor? It's not just any steel. It doesn't form easy like just any steel.
Blame president Clinton if you must blame a president over it.
Does it take over two years?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I think that, if you have bad intel, you probably shouldn't be going to war in the first place.
Bill Clinton did not invade Iraq. Idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Body armor is not made from steel. Moron.
(I'll give your unintelligent ass a ride on the "steel" part, although technically the armored vehicles tend to have mixtures of aluminum and ceramic composites as well)
The PROCESS to begin to get amored humvees and more body armor was not even BEGUN until MONTHS after the invasion was over, and the big bad liberal media was reporting that families were buying their soldiers body armor with their own money, and that soldiers were welding steel plates to their unarmored versions.
Riddle me this, you short-bus escapee:
If it is reasonably possible that you are sending tens of thousands of soldiers into an area for a "long period of time" during which they might be exposed to IEDs and constant guerilla small arms attacks, do you wait until months afterwards to start the process of giving them armored vehicles and body armor, or do you start the process in the months BEFORE the attack?
Anybody with any knowledge of military affairs knows what types of threats troops will come under in moder LIC's.
If only Clinton had prepared for an Iraq invasion sooner. Tsk Tsk.
Was the big bad liberal media traitors for airing videos showing our troops having to spot-wield scrap steel onto their humvees?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
If it is traitorous to call an administration onto the carpet for betraying our troops, I guess they are traitors.
I guess you are an ueber-patriot for not caring whether our troops had the right equipment, and defending the handling of the war, even if it meant more troops died because we didn't give them the right equipment.
Seems to me like you are exactly the kind of patriot that al Qaeda loves.
"Ha ha, the American soldiers are dying by the hundreds to our bombs and mortar shells, I'm glad we have patriots like Wild Cobra to keep their "free" media from criticizing the regime and forcing them to get armor that might stop us from killing US soldiers..."
No shit Sherlock. The soldiers didn't want to lug that around anyway. I was referring to the "Striker Steel" used to armor the vehicles.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
If you say so. Funny how they were using steel then. Didn't you rad up on that during the debate those years ago?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
LOL...Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Are you still pissed at me for pointing out you were confusing ozone and smog?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
How do you know what you don't know?
I guess the intel was equally bad in 1998?
http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/desert_fox/
And blaming Bush for lack of body armor is a little pathetic. Does anyone think that Bush wouldn't personally rubber-stamp anything the military wanted? Perhaps it is more the fault of a guy named Rumsfeld?
Indeed, it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
I was referring to this comment from WC about intel/contingency plans...Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Also, if the intel turns out to be bad, then you just made a huge mistake and you should fess up to it if it comes out in the international community. I'm not one of those people who believe you should never apologize. If you screw up, admit it. And chew the BLEEP out of whoever's running the intel section.Quote:
They had contingency plans, but things just didn't work right. Nobody's perfect. It is a sad thing that things occurred like they did. I don't have enough details to say much more.
Bush was the Commander in Chief. You can delegate responsibilities all you want... but in the end it's the person in charge who has to be held accountable for the actions of those taken below them.
That's how any hierarchy should be run.
Agreed here. It may be the fault of someone in the chain, but the blame will still go to the top in many cases. The chain of command can be very useful.Quote:
Originally Posted by jman3000
http://www.enotes.com/management-enc...mand-principle
By blaming Rumsfeld you ultimately have to blame Bush for appointing Rumsfeld.
And for not firing him a lot sooner. Loyalty to subs can bite you in the ass when they continue to eff up.
Good. You're going to hold Obama to the same standards over these bailouts, right? Over nationalizing as much as he can, right? Over making our economy worse than it would have been, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by jman3000
Well, the President acting as CiC is different slightly than signing a bill that Congress has drafted...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
But overall, yes I will hold him to it. Mainly because Congress is full of sissies that bow to whatever the President wants/says.
Wow... Blame Rumsfeld for not giving body armor to the troops when they didn't want it.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it weigh something like 80 pounds?
Just what I want to be lugging around in 110 degree weather...
As for the vehicle armor, nobody suspected they would develop such effective IED's. This was something that did get past the planning process.
There is a practical limit to things.
Always an excuse.
An excuse even though I said IED's got past the planning process?Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Nothing fair minded about you today, huh?
Just an observation.
I was perhaps a bit unclear, so I will hold your hand a bit more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The troops were using scrap steel as an ersatz method of up-armoring their vehicles.
What I was referring to in my statement was actual factory made vehicles that tend to use materials like aluminum and ceramics, in addition to steel.
Since we were discussing the procurement of more factory-made body-armor and armored vehicles...
If it is reasonably possible that you are sending tens of thousands of soldiers into an area for a "long period of time" during which they might be exposed to IEDs and constant guerilla small arms attacks, do you wait until months afterwards to start the process of giving them armored vehicles and body armor, or do you start the process in the months BEFORE the attack?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Only you could lack the reading comprehension to think that you won a debate about an accounting method by pointing out a spelling error.
You crack me up, seriously. :lol
We have to forgive you... a lot. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I thought you said they had a contingency plan for every possible situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
If I said those exact words, I misspoke. If I said that, you would have caught me then anyway. Are you slipping?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Anyway, that is clearly impossible. They planned for every conceivable situation. It's impossible to conceive every possible situation.
You're telling me it was inconceivable that the huge weapons caches that the US forces rushed past and never secured during their march to Baghdad might fall into the wrong hands and be used against the Americans?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Ummm... yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I'm not a blind, obtuse, partisan hack like yourself.
Would have been?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Where are your statistics to back up that?
And yes, Obama certainly nationalized everything he could, like Chrysler. It's currently under the copmlete control of the government, right?
OK, I'm a hack because I don't like senator McCain.Quote:
Originally Posted by jman3000
I'm a hack because I didn't vote for Gordon Smith.
I'm a hack because I stated I disagree with president Bush's spending, and Amnesty approach.
I guess standing up for people when you believe they are right, makes me a hack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Just because there's instances of non compliance doesn't mean you're absolved from that moniker.
you're a hack because you're a hack. Just admit it. There should be no shame in your game.
Wow...Quote:
Originally Posted by jman3000
If I'm a hack, what do you call yourself? I don't care for the republicans much, but I have liberals. If the fact I despise their social agenda makes me a hack, then I'll wear that badge with honor.
How effective does an IED need to be to penetrate 1/16" vinyl, brain trust?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The army only had about 300 armored humvees when the invasion was over and the occupation began.
The "armor" on your standard issue humvee consists of a vinyl door.
The "armor" on your standard duece and a half was a 1/4" rolled steel door and standard auto glass.
We're not talking about the difference between armored and better armored.
We are talking about sending troops into a low-level conflict wtih UNARMORED vehicles.
Anybody how has any concept of modern guerill fighting can easily imagine a fragmention grenade, or stick of dynamite with nails taped to it, either of which, you moron, will penetrate vinyl doors.
Question: Will the new armored Humvees pass Obama's CAFE standard?
I hear the new diesel engines are *low soot*, don't know about the rest of it.
I'm whatever you think I am. I'm not gonna let a title bestowed upon me in a message board to hurt my feelings or get my panties in a bunch. My opinion of you is that you're intellectually dishonest and lack any ability to think critically. It's my opinion. The world's not gonna end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Question: Are they even subject to the CAFE standard?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
http://slate.msn.com/id/2095705/
Why is the White House underfunding armored Humvees? (Feb 18, 2004)
You've read the story countless times: An American convoy in Baghdad or Fallujah or Tikrit is attacked; a GI is killed and others are wounded. Nearly all those convoys include the all-purpose Humvee, which, it is becoming clear, lacks sufficient armor. Many feature no more than canvas roofs and doors. "We're kind of sitting ducks in the vehicles we have," one lieutenant colonel told Newsday.
...
So how is the White House proposing to deal with this? By underfunding the program to armor Humvees.
...
The need appears to be significant, however. One congressional staffer told me that Iraq and Afghanistan currently have about 1,600 up-armored Humvees—meaning there's a need for 2,600 more. And according to a recent story on the military's Army New Service wire, a total of about 1,000 armor kits have been shipped to Iraq and Afghanistan. That would leave about 7,000 to go. What's more, the Pentagon's requirements have been subject to constant upward revision, as it apparently realizes that just about all its vehicles in Iraq are subject to attack.
The Pentagon is rushing to fill the shortfall. Besides armor kits, it's ramping up production of up-armored Humvees—to 220 per month—and it's shipping as many as it can from other theaters to Iraq. Still, the military says it doesn't expect to meet the need for either type of protection before late 2005.
The White House doesn't appear to be helping. Its proposed budget for 2005 includes funds for 818 up-armored Humvees, which may or may not be enough, depending on whether the military's latest estimate of its needs holds steady and how many up-armored Humvees are already in the pipeline. (An Army spokesman said he wasn't sure of the number.) As for the thousands for armor kits the military says it needs, the proposed budget includes exactly zero dollars for them.
Much has been made of the $50 billion the White House estimates it will need for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan—keeping troops in the field fed, equipment maintained, etc.—but didn't include in the proposed 2005 budget. Not including any money for armor kits may be motivated by the same likely impulse, that is, an effort to low-ball the budget until after the elections. The White House says it doesn't need the $50 billion now, arguing that there's plenty of money in the current budget to cover operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of this year. Anyway, says the White House, it wouldn't be smart to budget for more money now, since nobody knows what the operation in Iraq will look like in a year.
---------------------------------------------
$50Bn pricetag, anybody remember that?
That was what the Bush adminsitration thought it would take.
The military gets excemptions from all the fuel and emissions standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
One thing the military is realizing though, is that fuel intensive vehicles require LOTS of fuel.
Duh, one might say. So what?
That requires more fuel convoys.
More fuel convoys = more IED targets.
Battery technology, solar panels and quickie distilleries for alchohol, are being considered as ways to reduce the logistics footprint of units.
Talk about going green...
One think you forget.
The HUMVEE was never designed to be armored as a whole fleet. Only to move important people. There are armored vehicles for combat purposes, and an armored humvee is now too heavy for off road uses.
The article I see as spin, spin, spin...
One more thing Random...
I limit myself to a font size of 4. I think you went a bit overboard.
Humvees in Iraq were not used in combat?
The .50 cals and 40mm grenade launchers were there just to make the "important people" feel cool.
Nuking an American city would not be a good thing because it would "shake us out of our complacency." That's crazy.
Nuking certain American cities would be a good thing because it would have the potential to kill millions and millions of liberals.
Do the millions of conservatives living alongside them count at all for you, High-school Security?
It's not like the libs all live in the city of refuge, or some other well-defined kibbutz.
Please don't drop the bomb on America, Hi-Skool.
Think of the chilluns.
Is your concern for their immortal souls such that you wish to dispatch them to the other world instantly, to prevent their further corruption?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
I was being sarcastic. WC did have a good point about Humvees not being designed to be an armored vehicle. What you get in protection you lose in fuel economy, agility, and speed.
Some may say "So what" about fuel economy. Would you want to run out of gas in Fallujah?
Unfortunately, you can't make anything 100% safe.
The libtards don't care Darrin. They just spout off what their masters tell them to, without a thought based in reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
My father-in-law was a loadmaster on a C-130 in Vietnam. He said they used to sit on sandbags and chains to protect themselves. Sometimes you have to improvise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Too bad the nedia has such a liberal bias. The hounded the fact for years the soldiers didn't have body armor, then when it was issued, the soldiers [conveniently] lost it so they didn't have to carry the extra weigh. Too bad the news didn't report the soldiers didn't want it.
How did you find out?
I don't remember. It was probably an interview with a soldier on talk radio. Now before you accuse me of believing anything Hannity or Limbaugh say, I usually listen to local radio hosts. It would have been an interview with home town soldiers. Here are some interesting writings:Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
wiki: Interceptor Body Armor
Now remember the controversy about the Army not allowing the private purchased "Dragon Skin" to be used? Read this:Quote:
Body armor is always a compromise: mobility and comfort (and thus speed and stamina) are inevitably sacrificed to some degree when greater protection is achieved. This is a point of contention in the U.S. armed forces, with some favoring less armor in order to maintain mobility and others wanting as much protection as is practical. The debate is especially valid in the Iraq war, when comparing lightly-equipped insurgents with U.S. troops routinely burdened with upwards of 60 lbs. of weapons, ammunition, armor, food, water, and other assorted equipment. Many troops have complained that under such conditions, they are simply unable to pursue their guerrilla opponents. Troops who primarily ride in vehicles generally want the highest practical level of protection from IED's and ambushes, while dismounted infantry often make the case that impaired mobility can prove just as fatal to them as inadequate armor.
May 2006 Evaluation of Pinnacle Armor SOV 3000 “Dragon Skin"
Why lose the mobility when it fails half the time, and is heavier than the Army's choice for the "Interceptor" armor.
In other words, it was reported in the broadcast media. That's how you found out.