How does this make sense?

[sundevil777 102]

That's right, Bush was not the first to neglect personal and vehicle armor.

Do you think a President Gore would have invaded Afghanistan? Wasn't that an optional war? Is it your assertion that he would have done more than Bush to get the armor before invading there? Perhaps you think his military advisors would have told him that he despite so many years of providing a huge military budget, we can't go to war yet, invading Afghanistan will have to wait until we get more armor, that we suddenly realized is so important. I think his advisors would not have given him such advise, but I also think that Gore would not have invaded Afghanistan. I think he would have sent a few cruise missiles, and maybe a threat regarding lock boxes or something like that.

I certainly agree that the importance of armor hasn't been properly appreciated. To blame it all on Bush is not reasonable, in my opinion.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

they are both driven to win and have the same attack instinct that does not hesitate to discredit the opponent. There are numerous examples that support this observation.

Do you expect politicians to not discredit their opponent?

Although Clinton said that his opponents used "the politics of personal destruction", I contend that he did more of that personal destruction than any other recent president, with the possible exception of Nixon. I think a good example of that was how Bill and Hillary handled the travel office scandal. When the unethical conduct came into question, they couldn't admit that they fired the old company just to install their buddies, so they made up stories to justify the unjustifiable.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Found this in the paper today....maybe I'm too ignorant to the ways of war....but isn't Israel an ally that shares technology with us? Why wouldn't we use a tested system right now? Why let more troops die? I haven't looked up where these points originate from, but why in my gut do I feel this is connected to a contract to supply the DoD with weapons?

Do you not think killing 20 bystanders as a pretty bad defense system?

The system works great in an open battle field, but the damage in a MOUT environment is quite high.

Quote

Another worry is collateral damage, he said. “In a tight urban area, the Trophy system may take out the RPG, but we may kill 20 people in the process,” Sorenson said. “That is a concern we have that we haven’t fully evaluated.”

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

The sad part of it is, getting any laws to stop the 'buy-offs' would just die. Why, would the bought-off politicians want it to stop. The older politicians 'get to' the younger politicians and make it all look so good... the cycle continues.

Term Limits.

[billvon 3,118]

> What did Clinton do to get the troops the personal armor and
>vehicle armor for every humvee or truck?

Nothing. Would you buy an AAD if you didn't plan to make a jump? Would you buy a back protector for your paraglider harness if you didn't plan to paraglide? Would you buy a pony bottle if you didn't plan to SCUBA dive?

If you don't want to spend the money for additional armor, fine. Don't invade any countries. Pretty simple really.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

> What did Clinton do to get the troops the personal armor and
>vehicle armor for every humvee or truck?

Nothing. Would you buy an AAD if you didn't plan to make a jump? Would you buy a back protector for your paraglider harness if you didn't plan to paraglide? Would you buy a pony bottle if you didn't plan to SCUBA dive?



If you don't want to spend the money for additional armor, fine. Don't invade any countries. Pretty simple really.

That is a really crappy analogy. Not at all so "pretty simple really" as you portray. Unless you advocate a defense only type of military as Japan now has, then it would be pretty simple, really.

The military had darn well better plan to invade other countries. That is exactly what they should be preparing for. You admit that you didn't expect that of Clinton's administration.

You seem to imply that Clinton would not have invaded any country no matter what. Do you advocate a military that is not capable of invading another country?

Do you think the invasion of Afghanistan was justified? Do you think a president Gore would have done it? Would he have realized that our military needed more armor, and waited for it before invading?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Amazon 7]

I think ANY President would have gone after Afghanistan...I think Gore would have finished the job....

As far as Iraq,, and armor.. diferent war.. differing tactics. I dont think Gore would have gone there.. he knew how emasculated Sadaam was.. and it was not needed.

You believe what you will but at least Gore did all his time in Uniform last I heard.. as compared to others who did not.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

> What did Clinton do to get the troops the personal armor and
>vehicle armor for every humvee or truck?

If you don't want to spend the money for additional armor, fine. Don't invade any countries. Pretty simple really.

That is assuming the thought process of Clinton.
His actual actions are far different.

He did have troops in Somalia and then left the support armor on the ships. Then, he pulled out the troops and made the army look like "paper tigers" according to OBLs opinion in his interview.

He couldn't have made more mistakes in so short a time, if he would have had a plan.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

I think ANY President would have gone after Afghanistan.

But, they didn't have armor on the vehicles, etc.

Do you think he would have realized that he shouldn't invade before changing that situation?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Amazon 7]

Did you see the news.. DUDE.. our guys were riding friggin horses and in the back of pickup trucks snd motoring around on quads....... SF Teams went in and leveraged the local warlords to do most of the fighting...

as I said different war.. different tactics

Too bad Mr Incompetent did not STAY the COURSE there...oh thats right.. no oil.. no naitionbuilding that PNAC's NEO-CONS wanted to do

[sundevil777 102]

DUDETE.. our guys were still doing plenty of driving around in Humvees and larger trucks, plenty of supply truck convoys getting hit by all kinds of weapons including RPGs.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

The sad part of it is, getting any laws to stop the 'buy-offs' would just die. Why, would the bought-off politicians want it to stop. The older politicians 'get to' the younger politicians and make it all look so good... the cycle continues.

Term Limits.

________________________________

Over the years, term limits have been mentioned but, the idea seems to fade about as quickly as it is mentioned.
What chaps me is, here we have these over-paid congressmen and senators and for example, they only worked about 38-days in 2006! That, was on the news.


Chuck

[warpedskydiver 0]

Yep the BUFFs should have come in line astern stacked high @1000ft intervals with varying routes of egress.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Over the years, term limits have been mentioned but, the idea seems to fade about as quickly as it is mentioned.

The problem is that THEY would have to vote term limits. And they will never do that.

[billvon 3,118]

>Unless you advocate a defense only type of military as Japan now
>has, then it would be pretty simple, really.

That was, and should be, the purpose of our military - to defend the US from invaders. Countries need defense forces; empires need offensive forces that can occupy other countries.

On occasion we may need to send troops overseas to defend ourselves from people who have attacked us. (Not occupy countries, but to destroy invaders.) When we do that, you have to follow this plan. And once again it fairly simple; even somewhat intuitive.

1) Plan the response
2) Equip our troops to carry it out
3) Invade.

Unfortunately we have followed a slightly different plan:

1) Invade.
2) Equip our troops.
3) Try to come up with a plan.

>Do you think the invasion of Afghanistan was justified?

Yes. I have disagreements in how it was carried out, but retaliating against a country that attacked us should be one of the functions of our military.

> Do you think a president Gore would have done it?

Yes.

>Would he have realized that our military needed more armor, and
>waited for it before invading?

Yes. One criticism of him was that he thought about everything way too much, whereas Bush was a man of action, and it was a valid criticism. So yes, I think he would have thought the issue through a little more, and listened to what everyone (not just the people who agree with him) said.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Over the years, term limits have been mentioned but, the idea seems to fade about as quickly as it is mentioned.

The problem is that THEY would have to vote term limits. And they will never do that.

Then we vote in OTHER politicians that will...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Then we vote in OTHER politicians that will...

Love to, but they get there and decide to stay. fFind me canidates that are for term limits, and they have a great shot at getting my vote.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

On occasion we may need to send troops overseas to defend ourselves from people who have attacked us. (Not occupy countries, but to destroy invaders.) When we do that, you have to follow this plan. And once again it fairly simple; even somewhat intuitive.

1) Plan the response
2) Equip our troops to carry it out
3) Invade.

Gosh, if only everyone was as wise and gracious as you. Thank you so much for not only telling me what is what, but for making it clear that it is all simple and intuitive.

Your position is quite logical if you don't mind the US being a paper tiger.

Many would agree that the ability to 'speak softly and carry a big stick' is wise. Your position would give us 'speak softly and convince the rest of the world that we have the intention of making a big stick if we decide we need it'.

And once again it fairly simple; even somewhat intuitive.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

Then we vote in OTHER politicians that will...

Love to, but they get there and decide to stay. fFind me canidates that are for term limits, and they have a great shot at getting my vote.

You can do it without their support. Term limits on the state level are possible in states that allow referendums. On the national level, politicians are sensitive to what the public wants, and if there was a mass effort devoted to a constitutional amendment for term limits, politicians would support it. They'll get their pensions even if they don't stay there for 30 years.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 3,118]

>Many would agree that the ability to 'speak softly and carry a big
> stick' is wise. Your position would give us 'speak softly and convince
>the rest of the world that we have the intention of making a big stick
> if we decide we need it'.

Nope. We have a bigger stick than anyone else on the planet right now, and did before 9/11. We should maintain it as such, because as a defensive weapon, that stick has no equal.

Since you gave me my position I will give you yours. Your position is that we should speak softly and hit people over the head with a big stick often enough that they cower in fear. Doesn't matter if it's the right person; as long as they are bad, other people will see that big stick swinging and will never dare risk our wrath. Doesn't even matter what we say; it's that swinging stick that is our foreign policy. The problem with that approach is that fear turns to hatred, and even a big bully (with a big stick) can be brought down if enough join forces against him.

That's why Theodore Roosevelt phrased it in that way. Speak softly and carry a big stick. The stick is there so people listen to what you are saying - but it is what you say, and not how many people you hit with your stick, that makes you a leader.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Do you think the invasion of Afghanistan was justified? Do you think a president Gore would have done it? Would he have realized that our military needed more armor, and waited for it before invading?

I suppose that if these Bush-haters had been around on Dec. 7th, 1941, that they would have spoken out against fighting back against the Japanese, and instead demanded that we wait 10 years while we re-build our Navy first.

Rumsfield was right when he said; "You fight a war with what you've got". You don't always get to have everything you would like to have.

Just because a new weapon system is taking a while to work it's way into the field, doesn't mean that Bush is an idiot or that the Pentagon doesn't care. Sheesh.

[billvon 3,118]

>I suppose that if these Bush-haters had been around on Dec. 7th,
> 1941, that they would have spoken out against fighting back
> against the Japanese, and instead demanded that we wait 10 years
> while we re-build our Navy first.

And if Bush had been running things back then, we would have attacked Norway, paid Germany to sell us oil, then wondered why we were losing the war.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Do you think the invasion of Afghanistan was justified? Do you think a president Gore would have done it? Would he have realized that our military needed more armor, and waited for it before invading?

I suppose that if these Bush-haters had been around on Dec. 7th, 1941, that they would have spoken out against fighting back against the Japanese, and instead demanded that we wait 10 years while we re-build our Navy first.

Rumsfield was right when he said; "You fight a war with what you've got". You don't always get to have everything you would like to have.

Just because a new weapon system is taking a while to work it's way into the field, doesn't mean that Bush is an idiot or that the Pentagon doesn't care. Sheesh.

I don't recall many "Bush haters" opposing the invasion of Afghanistan. If only he'd kept his focus there he wouldn't have approval numbers in the basement.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

We have a bigger stick than anyone else on the planet right now, and did before 9/11. We should maintain it as such, because as a defensive weapon, that stick has no equal.

However, as you explained, it was OK that our military was without adequate armor, because we would have taken the time to do planning and equipping to take care of that shortfall before invading some country.

Wouldn't that be true of much more equipment for our troops? A lot of it isn't needed if they are only there, as you say, for the defense of our homeland. That policy would leave us with no credible deterrent - no stick at all. I say it is much better for our enemies to know we can strike very quickly.

Quote

Your position is that we should speak softly and hit people over the head with a big stick often enough that they cower in fear.

No, not everyone should be hit with the stick, just the right ones. Surely there will be innocent bystanders, that is the nature of war. Perhaps you would only consider a war moral if there are no innocents killed.

Post WWII W. Germany and Japan were a success story, I think, because the militaristic thinking of their leadership was truly rejected by the general population. If there were factions of the Japanese or German army that still wanted to fight, they were not provided cover by the average citizen. The average person there was able to clearly see they were on the wrong side, and that their interests were now best served by accepting the military defeat and suffering the indignity of what was only going to be a temporary occupation.

We didn't wait to see if this was going to be the case before declaring Victory in Europe/Japan day. So, I conclude that we have won the war in Iraq. As some opponents of the war correctly say, we haven't won the peace.

Perhaps we should conclude that some cultures are incapable of living in a diverse culture, even if that diversity is only the different forms of Islam. Do you think that Their religious text (or at the very least much of their religious leadership) denies them the right to Democracy and compels them to be crusaders for Islamic domination?

I contend that Al Qaeda is able to operate as they do in the Middle East because they have substantial support from the general population for their cause of worldwide Islamic domination. That quest needs to be rejected, starting from the bottom up or top down. Anwar Sadat had a true change of heart, that is what is needed by their leadership. Where is such a leader from the Arab world now?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 3,118]

>That policy would leave us with no credible deterrent - no stick at all.

How much hummvee armor would we need to launch a missile? Fly a bombing mission? Send a carrier group off a coast? Intercept an inbound fighter?

You don't need to get every detail of infantry provisioning correct if you are a defensive military force. But if you plan to invade, occupy and pacify a country - you better get it right.

>No, not everyone should be hit with the stick, just the right ones.
> Surely there will be innocent bystanders, that is the nature of war.
> Perhaps you would only consider a war moral if there are no
> innocents killed.

No, the only wars I consider moral are the ones in which NO one is killed. Diplomacy is moral; wars are not. Wars are the last resort of the desperate when every conceivable other option has failed - not a tool of cowardly and impatient politicians.

>We didn't wait to see if this was going to be the case before
> declaring Victory in Europe/Japan day. So, I conclude that we have
> won the war in Iraq. As some opponents of the war correctly say, we
> haven't won the peace.

I would agree with that assessment. I would further argue that you cannot shoot your way to peace. You cannot end violence by sending more people trained in violence. You cannot use an airstrike to build trust. We need to be smarter than that.

>Perhaps we should conclude that some cultures are incapable of
> living in a diverse culture, even if that diversity is only the different
> forms of Islam.

Or that some cultures are simply completely intolerant of occupation by enemy forces. I suspect we would be.

If we were invaded, how many americans would they have to kill before you agreed to lay down arms and follow the new government the invaders installed? How many would they have to kill before you started to trust them?

>Do you think that Their religious text (or at the very least much of
> their religious leadership) denies them the right to Democracy and
> compels them to be crusaders for Islamic domination?

No more so than the bible forces us to rape women in the villages we conquer in Iraq. (Numbers 31:15-18.)

>I contend that Al Qaeda is able to operate as they do in the Middle
> East because they have substantial support from the general
> population for their cause of worldwide Islamic domination.

I agree. They believe in islam as strongly as we believe in democracy.

>That quest needs to be rejected, starting from the bottom up or top
> down.

Sort of. Violence, not the quest for the spread of their religion, needs to be rejected. They can believe whatever they choose - that islam, democracy, socialism etc is the best choice for them. As long as they don't kill people to force others to adopt it, then no problem.

I would mention that at some point we have to learn the same lesson.