Clear-Eyed Conservatism translated into English

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Body armor is not made from steel. Moron.

---

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

(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)

---

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

Was the big bad liberal media traitors for airing videos showing our troops having to spot-wield scrap steel onto their humvees?

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..."

---

LOL...

Are you still pissed at me for pointing out you were confusing ozone and smog?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I think that, if you have bad intel, you probably shouldn't be going to war in the first place.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Perhaps it is more the fault of a guy named Rumsfeld?

---

Indeed, it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

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/

---

I was referring to this comment from WC about intel/contingency plans...

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

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.

---

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 Wild Cobra

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?

---

Well, the President acting as CiC is different slightly than signing a bill that Congress has drafted...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Always an excuse.

---

An excuse even though I said IED's got past the planning process?

Nothing fair minded about you today, huh?

Just an observation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.
If you say so. Funny how they were using steel then. Didn't you rad up on that during the debate those years ago?

---

I was perhaps a bit unclear, so I will hold your hand a bit more.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.
If you say so. Funny how they were using steel then. Didn't you rad up on that during the debate those years ago?

---

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

LOL...

Are you still pissed at me for pointing out you were confusing ozone and smog?

---

:lmao

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Forgive me if I'm wrong,

---

We have to forgive you... a lot. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

As for the vehicle armor, nobody suspected they would develop such effective IED's. This was something that did get past the planning process.

---

I thought you said they had a contingency plan for every possible situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I thought you said they had a contingency plan for every possible situation.

---

If I said those exact words, I misspoke. If I said that, you would have caught me then anyway. Are you slipping?

Anyway, that is clearly impossible. They planned for every conceivable situation. It's impossible to conceive 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?

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

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?

---

Ummm... yes.

I'm not a blind, obtuse, partisan hack like yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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?

---

Would have been?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

Ummm... yes.

I'm not a blind, obtuse, partisan hack like yourself.

---

OK, I'm a hack because I don't like senator McCain.

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.