The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dutch508 on April 19, 2015, 10:17:26 AM
-
big_dog (2,843 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141069970
Huckabee: Wait To Join Military Until President Obama Leaves Office
This one is pretty near to my heart. I joined the Army under Ron Reagan and listened to the older Soldiers talk about the post Vietnam years and life under Carter. It solidified in my mind that Liberals and Democrats hated the military and would do everything they could to weaken and destroy it.
Life under Ron was great. We had money to train, morale was through the roof, enlistments were up, retention was great. It lasted all the way until Bill Clinton took office after the success of Desert Storm.
Then we saw the reduction of funding, less training, drop in recruitment, cuts across the board, reductions in the force, drop in morale, you name it. Finally it was to the point where we didn’t have parts to fix the tanks and no money to train the troops. We did maneuver training with golf cart because we could only afford the fuel to start the tanks one day a week for 15 minutes to ‘exercise’ the tracks.
I saw a lot of good officers jump ship. Why put up with bullshit for less money that you could make on the outside?
I stuck it out.
Then 9/11 hit. We went into war footing. Money for equipment and training started rolling in. We got good recruits and filled the ranks. The combat experiences made the force better. BUT- we still had upper ranked officers and NCOs who grew up under the ‘no-fault’ Clinton years who seemed to avoid the war-zone and pad their careers with plum assignments.
THEN- the peace push came. Americans can’t deal with a long term anything. Leftists started to press the hate-America stories. Every death of an American soldier was on the nightly news. The MSM pushed the lie about war weariness.
They pushed Barry Obama into the White House and the whole thing reminded me of the Clinton years on steroids.
For me it all came to a head in 2011. We were pulling out of Iraq even though we all knew it was a bad idea. We were doing everything we could to pull out of Afghanistan except leave. It was a complete defeat for the military caused by our own Commander in Chief.
Don’t ask Don’t Tell was struck down. Christians were being forced out. More and more liberal bullshit kept being shoved down our throats. I had had enough.
I came down on orders for Afghanistan (would have been deployment #5 and #3 to Afghanistan for me) at the same time my wife chose to divorce me at the same time my Mother’s cancer came back.
I asked big Army for 6 months extension of orders in order to get my life in order and was told no. I told them to **** off and dropped my retirement orders. After 28 years, 10 months and 4 days I walked away.
I was tired of dealing with the bullshit.
The Dems and the Leftists are anti-military. They will do anything to destroy it, including Barry’s social experimentation projects. Morale is shit. Recruitment is down. Retention is shit.
Leftist claim it’s because of the war. It isn’t. It’s because we see there is no will to win from the CiC of the Dems. What’s the point of fighting when your own side will just hand it all away after you bleed and died for it?
You blame the right for killing soldiers? Nope. It’s you **** heads that do everything you can to kill us. Because you ahte us for defending this country. **** you.
Aviation Pro (7,769 posts)
2. Three words, poser...
Go
****
Yourself
How much time in service do you have, you ****ing shitstain?
I told you mine- what's yours, ****stick?
Delver Rootnose (82 posts)
5. If I remember correctly...orthodox jews don't fight in the military. At least there is an exemption from mandatory service of the orthodox in israel.
:o
George II (6,071 posts)
6. Nothing like undermining the government and President, huh?
oh, **** me. You shit heads did this everyday under W. Go **** yourself.
NCjack (117 posts)
8. Huckabee has not thought his advice through. It could lead to atheists and non-Xians dominating the US military.
They already do. There is a push to remove Chaplains from the military. There is a push to remove churches from Military bases. Shit- at the Aif Force Academy there is a push to remove any reference to Christianity at the same time promoting pagan and athiests!
Bartlet (156 posts)
16. What an utter load of shit. Huckabee is just a disgusting purveyor of garbage. Christians being persecuted in the military?!?! How utterly stupid even for a loud mouthed bloviating dimwit like Huckabee.
And yet people whoi have been there are telling you what is going on and you refuse to believe it? Who is the nutcase here? It isn't Huck.
onecaliberal (1,897 posts)
28. Definitely because you'd rather serve under a president Who views you as nothing more than cannon fodder used to fight their endless wars for money and power. And don't worry when you get back you won't get healthcare, food, or really any help. Your republican masters would rather you shut up and go die, and hurry up!
We knew W cared for us. He understood the fact that in order to win sometimes you have to ask your men to die. We also know Barry and the left hate us. It's very clear who would send us to die for no reason and not care.
BigDemVoter (871 posts)
35. What a ****ing BRILLIANT idea! Especially since the GOP has such a stellar record when it comes to funding the VA & military hospitals for our troops. Oh yes, and the GOP really did an outstanding job by attacking Iraq and THEN not having the intelligence to actually PLAN for a war and buy like. . . reinforced Hummers to withstand roadside bombs. . . And yeah. . . The injured from the war? Oh right. . . . Republicans really do support our troops!
The VA and the Military Hospital system is almost completely run by leftist Dems. The VA is a total catastorphy of Government ****-ups... THE GOVERNMENT run by Barry for the last 6 years has done nothing but gut the entire system and at the same time wasted millions on their friends running the system.
Initech (47,994 posts)
58. Yeah because republicans will send you to war!
Republicans know when their is an enemy trying to kill you you have to fight back and actually try to win.
Dems? not so much.
-
This one is pretty near to my heart. I joined the Army under Ron Reagan and listened to the older Soldiers talk about the post Vietnam years and life under Carter. It solidified in my mind that Liberals and Democrats hated the military and would do everything they could to weaken and destroy it.
Life under Ron was great. We had money to train, morale was through the roof, enlistments were up, retention was great. It lasted all the way until Bill Clinton took office after the success of Desert Storm.
Then we saw the reduction of funding, less training, drop in recruitment, cuts across the board, reductions in the force, drop in morale, you name it. Finally it was to the point where we didn’t have parts to fix the tanks and no money to train the troops. We did maneuver training with golf cart because we could only afford the fuel to start the tanks one day a week for 15 minutes to ‘exercise’ the tracks.
I saw a lot of good officers jump ship. Why put up with bullshit for less money that you could make on the outside?
I stuck it out.
Then 9/11 hit. We went into war footing. Money for equipment and training started rolling in. We got good recruits and filled the ranks. The combat experiences made the force better. BUT- we still had upper ranked officers and NCOs who grew up under the ‘no-fault’ Clinton years who seemed to avoid the war-zone and pad their careers with plum assignments.
THEN- the peace push came. Americans can’t deal with a long term anything. Leftists started to press the hate-America stories. Every death of an American soldier was on the nightly news. The MSM pushed the lie about war weariness.
They pushed Barry Obama into the White House and the whole thing reminded me of the Clinton years on steroids.
For me it all came to a head in 2011. We were pulling out of Iraq even though we all knew it was a bad idea. We were doing everything we could to pull out of Afghanistan except leave. It was a complete defeat for the military caused by our own Commander in Chief.
Don’t ask Don’t Tell was struck down. Christians were being forced out. More and more liberal bullshit kept being shoved down our throats. I had had enough.
I came down on orders for Afghanistan (would have been deployment #5 and #3 to Afghanistan for me) at the same time my wife chose to divorce me at the same time my Mother’s cancer came back.
I asked big Army for 6 months extension of orders in order to get my life in order and was told no. I told them to **** off and dropped my retirement orders. After 28 years, 10 months and 4 days I walked away.
I was tired of dealing with the bullshit.
The Dems and the Leftists are anti-military. They will do anything to destroy it, including Barry’s social experimentation projects. Morale is shit. Recruitment is down. Retention is shit.
Leftist claim it’s because of the war. It isn’t. It’s because we see there is no will to win from the CiC of the Dems. What’s the point of fighting when your own side will just hand it all away after you bleed and died for it?
You blame the right for killing soldiers? Nope. It’s you **** heads that do everything you can to kill us. Because you ahte us for defending this country. **** you.
I told you mine- what's yours, ****stick?
:o
oh, **** me. You shit heads did this everyday under W. Go **** yourself.
They already do. There is a push to remove Chaplains from the military. There is a push to remove churches from Military bases. Shit- at the Aif Force Academy there is a push to remove any reference to Christianity at the same time promoting pagan and athiests!
And yet people whoi have been there are telling you what is going on and you refuse to believe it? Who is the nutcase here? It isn't Huck.
We knew W cared for us. He understood the fact that in order to win sometimes you have to ask your men to die. We also know Barry and the left hate us. It's very clear who would send us to die for no reason and not care.
The VA and the Military Hospital system is almost completely run by leftist Dems. The VA is a total catastorphy of Government ****-ups... THE GOVERNMENT run by Barry for the last 6 years has done nothing but gut the entire system and at the same time wasted millions on their friends running the system.
Republicans know when their is an enemy trying to kill you you have to fight back and actually try to win.
Dems? not so much.
H5! Dutch! quoted because this needs to be screamed from the rafters!
These pussies would wilt like yesterdays dandelions if I showed 'em my pud! Not one of 'em would make a wart on Vet's ass!
Don't ya just love how cowards are willing to sacrifice your life?
-
The way the military has been used as a laboratory for social experimentation is disgusting.
The way libs have undermined our military and then have gotten away with blaming it on conservatives is intolerable.
-
H5! Dutch! quoted because this needs to be screamed from the rafters!
These pussies would wilt like yesterdays dandelions if I showed 'em my pud! Not one of 'em would make a wart on Vet's ass!
Don't ya just love how cowards are willing to sacrifice your life?
Since DUmbasses can only be generous with OUR money, it's only natural to a DUmbass to be brave and courageous with OUR lives.
DUmmies only take take gimmie, to them sacrifice is something EVERYONE else has to do for them.
I've only TRULY HATED one person in my entire life, but lately, I'm beginning to feel the same way now towards liberals in general, and DUmmies in particular. Just like the only person I've TRULY HATED, I also hate libs and DUmmies not because of who or what they are, but because of what they have done/are doing, not just to me, but our once great nation. I truly want them all to die, I really do, or to kill them myself outright.
I TRULY HATE LIBS AND DUmmies!!!! :argh:
-
Since DUmbasses can only be generous with OUR money, it's only natural to a DUmbass to be brave and courageous with OUR lives.
DUmmies only take take gimmie, to them sacrifice is something EVERYONE else has to do for them.
I've only TRULY HATED one person in my entire life, but lately, I'm beginning to feel the same way now towards liberals in general, and DUmmies in particular. Just like the only person I've TRULY HATED, I also hate libs and DUmmies not because of who or what they are, but because of what they have done/are doing, not just to me, but our once great nation. I truly want them all to die, I really do, or to kill them myself outright.
I TRULY HATE LIBS AND DUmmies!!!! :argh:
In my opinion, DemocRat is the worst insult you can bestow on a person! If we could have a season to rid the country of these Darwinian mistakes, I'd buy as many tags as my bank account would allow!
-
Since DUmbasses can only be generous with OUR money, it's only natural to a DUmbass to be brave and courageous with OUR lives.
DUmmies only take take gimmie, to them sacrifice is something EVERYONE else has to do for them.
I've only TRULY HATED one person in my entire life, but lately, I'm beginning to feel the same way now towards liberals in general, and DUmmies in particular. Just like the only person I've TRULY HATED, I also hate libs and DUmmies not because of who or what they are, but because of what they have done/are doing, not just to me, but our once great nation. I truly want them all to die, I really do, or to kill them myself outright.
I TRULY HATE LIBS AND DUmmies!!!! :argh:
We have to engage them, battle them, and defeat them.
There is no compromise, no quarter, no mercy.
They must be unconditionally defeated.
-
In my opinion, DemocRat is the worst insult you can bestow on a person! If we could have a season to rid the country of these Darwinian mistakes, I'd buy as many tags as my bank account would allow!
I'll even throw a few $$$ your way for more tags, Al!
We have to engage them, battle them, and defeat them.
There is no compromise, no quarter, no mercy.
They must be unconditionally defeated.
You're not telling me anything I don't already know. I've had a running fight with the Sierra Club and Earth First since my days as an off-road motorcycle racer, there have been races cancelled by them for NO G D REASON (like the Blackwater in Davis, WV, Barstow To Vegas desert race, countless time the SCORE Baja 500 and 1000 were either delayed or needlessly re-routed, etc.).
You can and will beat them, but to have any real, long-lasting "peace", they must be totally wiped out! Just like muslems NEED to be!
-
H5! Dutch! quoted because this needs to be screamed from the rafters!
These pussies would wilt like yesterdays dandelions if I showed 'em my pud! Not one of 'em would make a wart on Vet's ass!
Don't ya just love how cowards are willing to sacrifice your life?
You left off the "For nothing" on the end of that. Anything the military wins on the battlefield, you can pretty well count on the Democrats f***ing up and turning into garbage the next time they get eight straight in the White House.
-
You left off the "For nothing" on the end of that. Anything the military wins on the battlefield, you can pretty well count on the Democrats f***ing up and turning into garbage the next time they get eight straight in the White House.
I stand corrected. "The Bummer" has done his best to make our sacrifices in Iraq and Afghanistan completely meaningless. I sure hope he roasts in hell along with his muzzie buddies and their 72 virgin goats! I know God teaches us to forgive, but I guess I'm just going to have to ask he forgives me that sin, because Bummer and his ilk are SOB's I'd rather bask in my sweet revenge and pay whatever price I may have to in order to make amends.
-
The post-Vietnam military was not as bad as some portray it. The upside was losing the left over draftee malcontents. It did make a difference. Yes, I watched them Skycrane in replacement A/C with patches and MIG kills on the side from Davis Mothan and yes, the pay was flat and training time was scarce, but those that were there, wanted to be there.
Other than that, spot on. The difference when Ronaldus was elected could not have been any more profound. Pisses me off that my Honorables are signed by piss ants, but there it is.
-
You left off the "For nothing" on the end of that. Anything the military wins on the battlefield, you can pretty well count on the Democrats f***ing up and turning into garbage the next time they get eight straight in the White House.
Every. Time. :argh:
-
Let me begin by thanking dutch and all here who have served or is serving.
I'd like the lurking DUmmies to read the AP article (link below) about Dana Perino's book. After reading the article I'd like them to honestly (I know that's a word they're not really familiar with) to think about how their most favorite pretender in chief compares to their most hated commander in chief.
http://news.yahoo.com/5-things-former-bush-press-secretary-perinos-book-070640017.html;_ylt=AwrC0Cbf1DNVzxAAyUPQtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByOHZyb21tBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--
-
d508, I'm not going to quote your post, for the sake of brevity, but H-5!!!
Gutting the military for political purposes is all but a tradition in the US - and Rs don't have perfectly clean hands.
After WW1, in the 1920s, R Presidents and R-controlled Congresses signed and ratified naval treaties that not only led to the scrapping of obsolete and obsolescent capital ships (pre-Dreadnoughts and early Dreadnoughts), but also the scrapping of some super-Dreadnoughts, the cancellation of new classes of super-Dreadnoughts, and the building of large numbers of heavy cruisers that performed poorly in action.
Despite the potential of tanks being amply demonstrated in WW1, neither the R Administrations of the 1920s nor FDR in the 1930s authorized the development of this new, powerful, weapon. Contrary to the proverb, "Built like a Sherman tank," the Sherman was a mediocrity that was one or two generations behind what the Germans and Russians had in battle. The main virtues of the Sherman was that it was relatively easy to build, was deployed in large numbers, and the ingenuity of the unit commanders and tankers in using the Sherman. A lot of good men died because politicians' lack of vision and wishful thinking put the US Army years behind the Germans and even the Soviets!
In the Pacific Theater, the starvation of the military (specifically the Navy) had deadly effects in multiple ways.
Start with the fabled B-17. When it was new, it was an advanced, even visionary plane. But it lost to another rival in competition to become the USAAC's new bomber. The winner? The B-18 Bolo. The B-17 was too good! And come WW2, the B-18 was relegated to use for anti-submarine patrol.
Of the planes carried by USN CVs into mid-late 1942, the F4F and SBD were adequate (not great, but adequate), but the TBD was obsolescent to the point of being obsolete. When the F6F and TBF/TBM came into the fleet, they were top-notch, but the Avenger didn't come into full usage until August, 1942, and the Hellcat until early 1943 (over a year after Pearl Harbor!).
Gato class submarines, that with the subsequent Balao class were war-winners in their role, were almost all brought into commission during the war (the sole exception being USS Drum).
Speaking of submarines, the torpedoes carried by most USN submarines were a horrific scandal. And version of the same torpedo, with the same design defects, were carried by USN destroyers and torpedo bombers. In a nutshell, the depth-keeping mechanism, the contact exploder, and the magnetic exploder were all defective. The defects could have been detected and fixed pre-war, but training budgets didn't allow live fire tests from submarines, nor live practice. Consequently the defects were not detected and fixed until the latter half of 1943.
I have to stop at this point, but the Sherman tank was used again in Korea, as were WW2 type infantry rifles.
-
d508, I'm not going to quote your post, for the sake of brevity, but H-5!!!
Gutting the military for political purposes is all but a tradition in the US - and Rs don't have perfectly clean hands.
After WW1, in the 1920s, R Presidents and R-controlled Congresses signed and ratified naval treaties that not only led to the scrapping of obsolete and obsolescent capital ships (pre-Dreadnoughts and early Dreadnoughts), but also the scrapping of some super-Dreadnoughts, the cancellation of new classes of super-Dreadnoughts, and the building of large numbers of heavy cruisers that performed poorly in action.
Despite the potential of tanks being amply demonstrated in WW1, neither the R Administrations of the 1920s nor FDR in the 1930s authorized the development of this new, powerful, weapon. Contrary to the proverb, "Built like a Sherman tank," the Sherman was a mediocrity that was one or two generations behind what the Germans and Russians had in battle. The main virtues of the Sherman was that it was relatively easy to build, was deployed in large numbers, and the ingenuity of the unit commanders and tankers in using the Sherman. A lot of good men died because politicians' lack of vision and wishful thinking put the US Army years behind the Germans and even the Soviets!
In the Pacific Theater, the starvation of the military (specifically the Navy) had deadly effects in multiple ways.
Start with the fabled B-17. When it was new, it was an advanced, even visionary plane. But it lost to another rival in competition to become the USAAC's new bomber. The winner? The B-18 Bolo. The B-17 was too good! And come WW2, the B-18 was relegated to use for anti-submarine patrol.
Of the planes carried by USN CVs into mid-late 1942, the F4F and SBD were adequate (not great, but adequate), but the TBD was obsolescent to the point of being obsolete. When the F6F and TBF/TBM came into the fleet, they were top-notch, but the Avenger didn't come into full usage until August, 1942, and the Hellcat until early 1943 (over a year after Pearl Harbor!).
Gato class submarines, that with the subsequent Balao class were war-winners in their role, were almost all brought into commission during the war (the sole exception being USS Drum).
Speaking of submarines, the torpedoes carried by most USN submarines were a horrific scandal. And version of the same torpedo, with the same design defects, were carried by USN destroyers and torpedo bombers. In a nutshell, the depth-keeping mechanism, the contact exploder, and the magnetic exploder were all defective. The defects could have been detected and fixed pre-war, but training budgets didn't allow live fire tests from submarines, nor live practice. Consequently the defects were not detected and fixed until the latter half of 1943.
I have to stop at this point, but the Sherman tank was used again in Korea, as were WW2 type infantry rifles.
My FIL drove a Sherman in WWII. Their nickname was the "Ronson", as in the cigarette lighters the GI's carried at the time. The only good thing about them was maneuverability and the fact we could mass produce them on a scale the Krouts and Japs couldn't keep up with. He told me they never, ever, took on a Panzer or Tiger in a straight on battle but would attack in numbers from the rear. Shells from the Sherman would just bounce off in a frontal or side assault. They had to hit 'em in the ass!
In WWI we had the Browning Automatic Rifle but refused to issue it to our soldiers, even though the Germans had much the same weapon and machine guns mowed 'em down like cuttin' grass, for the sole reason they were afraid the design would fall into enemy hands. The amount of lives lost because of those decisions is truly criminal. It hasn't progressed much from the military point of view of grunts.
Nuttin' worse than a ****in' desk jockey or politician making decisions with noncom and infantry hide.
-
Liberals look at the U.S. and it's use of foreign policy to spread freedom as the root of all evil in the world. They look at the U.S. Military as the execution arm of said foreign policy. Therefore both must be punished and made to pay for their sins. We're seeing this in how the Progressives have surrendered the status of America as a world leader and the continued gutting of the military.
With every new insult that is foisted upon those of us that serve and the retirees it gets harder for me to remember I don't do this based on who is warming the chair in the WH and it's getting more and more tempting to drop my paperwork in a couple years.
Right now what's keeping me going is that things will get better at some point and those new kids will need some good strong NCO leadership...not just the dregs that were left when Clinton ran everyone off.
-
My FIL drove a Sherman in WWII. Their nickname was the "Ronson", as in the cigarette lighters the GI's carried at the time. The only good thing about them was maneuverability and the fact we could mass produce them on a scale the Krouts and Japs couldn't keep up with. He told me they never, ever, took on a Panzer or Tiger in a straight on battle but would attack in numbers from the rear. Shells from the Sherman would just bounce off in a frontal or side assault. They had to hit 'em in the ass!
In WWI we had the Browning Automatic Rifle but refused to issue it to our soldiers, even though the Germans had much the same weapon and machine guns mowed 'em down like cuttin' grass, for the sole reason they were afraid the design would fall into enemy hands. The amount of lives lost because of those decisions is truly criminal. It hasn't progressed much from the military point of view of grunts.
Nuttin' worse than a ****in' desk jockey or politician making decisions with noncom and infantry hide.
H-5! And thanks for the fill-in! Of my Dad and three uncles, three were 4-Fs (one wasn't detected until he was in UDT training, not that he was trying to trick anyone). The uncle that did serve was a mechanic in North Africa and Italy (could've been an interpreter, too, since German was spoken in his home, but a farm boy serving as a mechanic was pretty natural). Anyway, I don't have direct family memories like that. One of the weaker combat aspects of the Sherman was the use of a gasoline engine - gasoline being more readily flammable than diesel - and the protection over the gas tank. hence the bitter nickname, "Ronson". Another of the lesser aspects of the Sherman, initially, was that the main gun was a short-barreled 75mm. Between the shell size and the lower muzzle velocity, it was not a good match either for the German Tiger or Panther tanks. The gun was upgraded to a long-barreled 75mm, giving higher muzzle velocity and better armor penetration.
But as you said, the Sherman was made to work by sheer quantity and careful usage. That was my meaning in referencing the "ingenuity" of unit commanders and tankers. The same was the case with the F4F fighters in the PTO: it was in some significant respects inferior to the IJN Zero, but used in ways that avoided those aspects of its performance, the F4F could best the Zero (which also had some vulnerabilities).
I have to stop at this point, but the Sherman tank was used again in Korea, as were WW2 type infantry rifles.
The WW2 rifle I was referring to (but had a momentary mental block) was the M1 Garand. NoKo and Chinese infantry were frequently armed with the PPSh-41 submachine gun, resulting a significant rate of fire disadvantage for US forces.
Further, the USAAF and USN fighters were, initially, WW2-vintage F8Fs, F4Us, and P-51s. Good planes in their day, but but they found themselves inferior to MiG-15s, and straight-wing F-80 and F-84 jet fighters were also outmatched. F-86s came into usage, matching or outmatching the MiGs.
Coming into Vietnam, US fighters were a mish-mash of Century Series, not really designed for the kind of combat seen in Vietnam, and not exactly very good aerodynamic designs (looked at in retrospect; the Century Series were pushing the envelope of aerodynamic knowledge), plus the not very mature F-4. Other than the F-105, the Century Series planes were not much used in Vietnam. The F-4 had been a bit of a political football, and its original missiles-only armament, and the tactical training of pilots had been the ivory tower dream of USAF desk jockeys. Meanwhile, the MiG-17 and MiG-21 were, evidently, more stable designs, and designed/trained for the kind of tactics that were used in the Vietnam air war.
With due respect to 98ZJ (Edit: And gratitude!!!), post Vietnam was a hard time for the US military. Budgets were slashed, weapons systems were threatened with cancellation (Besides the B-1, there were serious attempts to kill the Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the A-10, and the F-18), and maintenance (= combat readiness!) was very under-funded. Between "teething problems" with the F100 engine used in the F-15 and F-16, combat readiness for units flying those birds, IIRC, was in the 75% range. And the USAF and USN were losing experienced pilots to high-paying airline pilot jobs. It may not have been mid-1930s "worst of times" for the military, but Washington pols in the 1970s were hard at work cannibalizing the military to pay for pet social programs.
I wonder how many years Clinton cost the F-22, F-35 (which is also looking designed-by-politician), and SDI programs! I wonder how Clinton era budget cuts affected the equipage of US soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq (for which G. W. Bush took enormous flak! pun intended)!
A lot of DC pols and Pentagon ivory-tower desk jockeys have a lot of soldiers', sailors', Marines', and USAF personnel's blood on their hands!
-
Sorry for my long-winded threadjackery!
Back to the topic of this thread, a lot of pols, including Presidents, have been short-sighted about the military and/or slashed it for the sake of their own agenda. Even Clinton, for all his stupidity was just that. Stupid. I think BHO is the first US President whose actions regarding the US military have been driven by malice and by agenda to make it something other than what it should be, an effective defense. For all Carter's and Clinton's faults, BHO is the first President who is misusing his position as C in C in betrayal of US military personnel. That being the case, I cannot fault Huckabee's advice.
Being committed to combat is a risk US military personnel are aware of and assume when they enlist or become commissioned. Having a betrayer C in C is not a risk they are assuming!
-
Don't ya just love how cowards are willing to sacrifice your life?
All part of the liberal/democrat love of redistribution of (other people's) assets AND other people's asses.
Recall the early Clinton letter regarding how he 'loved the country but loathed the military', written while sniveling out of an ROTC appointment.
-
All part of the liberal/democrat love of redistribution of (other people's) assets AND other people's asses.
Recall the early Clinton letter regarding how he 'loved the country but loathed the military', written while sniveling out of an ROTC appointment.
Assets and asses. Now that's good.
I would say Clinnochio was despicable, but that would be an insult to the word.
-
If Republicans are so terrible why is it that Democrat presidents always, but always try to gut the military during their time in office? Why is it that they always send troops places we have no business being in and have illogical, schizophrenic strategies? Why is it they cut funding for equipment? Why is the VA in shambles? Why, despite saying he would investigate it's systemic problems and fix them, 0bama's all but forgotten them. Why did 0bama decide Fort Hood was merely "work place violence" instead of an act of terrorism? And why, before before so much as mentioning the soldiers who were injured and died, he gave a shout out to someone in the audience, clearly showing disrespect?Why did he pull out of Iraq too soon, despite the fact that they asked us to stay. It's now a more dangerous place with a more dangerous enemy that we'll have to deal with at some point? Why was one of the first things he CHOSE to cut during the sequester was services & freeze the pay of active duty military & stop veterans services? It was only because of massive public outcry that he didn't. Why did 0bama deliberately try to keep elderly WWII vets from visiting their memorial (for some this would be their only chance), while allowing a rally for and with illegal aliens on the same property?
Why is it that when 0bama or the first Wookie visit my son's base they have to force them to go? Otherwise it would be an echo chamber. Granted, they're polite, Marines always are, but the applause is done out of respect for the office and because it's expected. When Bush showed up they had to turn people away and the applause was loud and enthusiastic. Despite John Kerry's assertions otherwise, they're smart enough to know when their CinC as his minions have zero respect for them.
If even one of you can answer these in a way that shows his compassion for the military, then by all means, I'd love to hear it.
-
You left off the "For nothing" on the end of that. Anything the military wins on the battlefield, you can pretty well count on the Democrats f***ing up and turning into garbage the next time they get eight straight in the White House.
The American military doesn't lose wars.
The Dems give them away.
-
The American military doesn't lose wars.
The Dems give them away.
Bingo!
-
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIHz5tevLAw[/youtube]
One of my favorite videos.
Barry was pompous enough to come out to Hail to the Chief.
-
The American military doesn't lose wars.
The Dems give them away.
Maybe some one could communicate this distinction better than I'm about to, but BHO didn't just give away Iraq and Afghanistan. His moves were designed to undo what President G. W. Bush accomplished and punish the US military for that accomplishment.
-
Maybe some one could communicate this distinction better than I'm about to, but BHO didn't just give away Iraq and Afghanistan. His moves were designed to undo what President G. W. Bush accomplished and punish the US military for that accomplishment.
I think you summed it up quite nicely! I would also like to add the MSM to the mix. They, more than any other group, were responsible for the hatred against GW Bush and they, more than any other group, are responsible for the fool currently in the White House.
-
d508, I'm not going to quote your post, for the sake of brevity, but H-5!!!
...
I have to stop at this point, but the Sherman tank was used again in Korea, as were WW2 type infantry rifles.
I know you're quite a military tech buff, but a lot of the things you and others find scandalous are somewhat misstated, and flowed from reasons other than simple budget or political constraints, such as wartime resource allocation and the role of the technical boards within the War and Navy Departments as well as issues like wartime resource allocation and the use of not-unlimited logistic assets to move materials, equipment, and units.
Just to discuss the last little bit, for instance, "Sherman tanks" takes in such a huge variety of vehicles and armament suites that the only thing they really have in common are the words 'Sherman tank.' The ones used in Korea were not intended to be the primary tank for the theater but were refurbed and fielded until enough M26s and M46s could be fielded...and on top of that, the Shermans used in Korea were the wide-tracked HVSS models like the 'Easy eight' (M4A3E8) with a high-velocity 76, and fully-sloped (47-degree) frontal armor, fielded initially only in December 1945, and quite superior to even the best common models of the Panzer IV and StuGs, the actual mainstays of the Wehrmacht, and able to effectively engage Panthers if at some disadvantage (Though the Panthers were being so heavily attritted by Allied air and artillery dominance at that point that they were unable to effectively counter the -E2 and -E8 Shermans). A lot of dumbasses who play computer games, take the History channel as gospel, and have never been inside a real tank call them 'Marginal improvements' over the cast-hull VVSS narrow-track 'Ronsons' fielded in 1942. These people are dopes, the only thing the M4 and M4A3E2/8 have in common is a general shape, six road wheels on each side (Using, however, utterly different track and suspension systems), but practically nothing was interchangeable between them, everything else - size, armament, armor thickness and placement, ground pressure, and powertrain - were completely different.
In Korea, the vanishingly-few tank-to-tank encounters involved T34/85s on the Red side, about all the Norks had, and not in huge numbers. While the T34 had fine mobility and a good ballistic shape, its 85mm main gun was only roughly equal to a German 75L48 (Not the L70, though) or the American 76mm (And nowhere near the same league as the 90mm on the M26/M46), their tank-to-tank commo was hand-signals and flags rather than FM radios, and their ability to train the unstabilized main gun was mainly a cranking job rather than the powerful and reliable hydraulics on the American tanks, which also had stabilization systems. The entire T34 family, and its descendants until the T64 and T72, used dry-pin track with no grousers which both wore out more rapidly than bushed track and had markedly inferior climbing ability in the hilly Korean terrain. The Christie-type suspension had been a huge innovation in the BT series tanks, continued with and additional road wheel and beefier construction in the T34s, but it was quite difficult to service when one of the massive coil springs broke and consumed considerable internal hull space; the Sherman's HVSS and 23" wide tracks were at least competitive in mobility and much more easily serviced, being entirely external, and the M26/M46's torsion bar system was its equal in deflection and thus mobility, and quite superior in serviceability as well as availability of the full hull width for internal storage of fuel and ammo and large powertrain components, a deficiency the Soviets fixed with the T34's successors by switching to torsion bar suspension.
The M26 was actually fielded for combat testing in the final few weeks of the war in Europe (Despite GEN Patton's and the ARMY's resistance, NOT that of the politicians), and came out approximately even in a few encounters with Tiger Is; the primary difference between the M46 and the M26 were in the drivetrain and placement of the final drives, not the turret, armament, or frontal armor, and even the later M47 and M48 were basically improved M46s, still with 90mm main guns. Even the basic M60 turtle-turret was the same casting as the M48 turret, US tank design was highly evolutionary until the MBT70 program.
In the Pusan perimeter battles, though, the high tide of Nork armor advances, the thing that actually checked them was the arrival in theater of the 'Super bazooka,' i.e. the 3.5" bazooka, after the WW2 2.36" bazooka had proved ineffective (For reasons concerning which it is difficult to find much factual information, since it had proven quite effective against German tanks that were equally-well armored in the ETO); the 3.5" bazooka was to all intents and purposes a US improved copy of the 88mm Panzerschreck, itself a German improved copy of a captured 2.36" bazooka.
As far as the use of WW2 rifles is concerned, the Garand actually remained a world-beater through the end of Korean hostilities, the Norks and ChiComs were armed almost entirely with Moisin-Nagant pattern bolt-action rifles or PPSh/PPS patterned SMGs. Despite the nominal adoption of the Simonov's SKS and Kalashnikov's AK by the Red Army well before the Norks crossed the 38th Parallel, they weren't exactly handing them out to the farm team henchmen then or for quite a few years afterward. The awkward 'en-bloc' loading system with its 8-round capacity was a product of Army board requirements, one in which both industry and politicians had completely clean hands. Despite its weak hitting power, the M1 through M3 carbines, as well as the BAR and the entire line of German Sturmgewehre and literally everyone's SMGs, had proved the concerns about the fragility of removable magazines to be an entirely illusory problem, but in the absence of driving need, the Garand's successors like the BM59 and M14 were still gestating, as were the quantum jumps like the FAL and AR systems.
-
There is a really good book about the 70th Tank Battalion in Korea during the war. They were the 'school' battalion at Fort Knox in '50. Most of the heavy armor ahd been mothballed after WW2 (sound familiar?) and the battalion was the only active duty unit that could respond quick enough to the NK invasion of the south. The literally rounded up enought tanks from the motorpool and displays to ship out and get into Korea intime for the breakout from Pusan. In mostly M26s to boot!
I helped the veterans put together their stories in the book, "Stike Swifty" the soty of the 70th Tank in Korea 1950-1953.
I think it's still being published.
-
Upon some reflection on the drive in this moring, I think that what Huckabee said is the wrong message to send to current and potential members of the military...especially if he's thinking of running for President.
He's asking us to choose sides in a profession where we serve the President no matter whether we voted for him or not and it's wrong to try and convince us to do so based on the superficial "logic" of "don't join until there's someone with an 'R' by their name".
I've served under more Dem Presidents than I have Republican ones.
-
I know you're quite a military tech buff, but a lot of the things you and others find scandalous are somewhat misstated, and flowed from reasons other than simple budget or political constraints, such as wartime resource allocation and the role of the technical boards within the War and Navy Departments as well as issues like wartime resource allocation and the use of not-unlimited logistic assets to move materials, equipment, and units.
OK, I haven't read very far into your post, but already want to thank you. I've read some in military history, and I've had some exposure to recent military technology through past and current jobs. My first job in Silicon Valley was at a company that produced display systems for military aircraft. A couple things I've learned are that much that is published is over-simplified (I've obviously done so, not that I'm any sort of expert, e.g. in not mentioning that the Sherman was classified as a "medium" tank, and the Tiger a "heavy"), and that there is always more that can be learned. It is for the latter that I'm thanking and H-5ing you.
-
They already do. There is a push to remove Chaplains from the military. There is a push to remove churches from Military bases. Shit- at the Aif Force Academy there is a push to remove any reference to Christianity at the same time promoting pagan and athiests!
Who will they call to when they are in a foxhole in their final moments? :whistling:
-
I have to say--as a lifelong professional civilian--that this whole bit really bothers me.
I have no idea what I "owe" to the United States armed forces, other than that it's some really enormous debt and unbounded gratitude.
Remember what that famous English socialist said: "people sleep peacefully in bed at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
Or something like that. The primitives need to remember--but of course they won't--who's responsible for their being able to lead the lives of security and safety they do.
Actually, they can put themselves under the "protection," the guardianship, of Skippy's pals, the Islamacist terrorists, and see what happens.
<<<wishes they would, really.
And what's most admirable is the sheer professionalism of the United States armed forces; true to their job description, they're willing to protect any of us.
I couldn't be that professional; about half the country, and all of the primitives, if threatened, I'd just say, "okay, die, you ****ers," and walk away.
-
I couldn't be that professional; about half the country, and all of the primitives, if threatened, I'd just say, "okay, die, you ****ers," and walk away.
Yeah, well, it's not that we don't feel some of that too, but the duty thing and all that, ya know...
-
Yeah, well, it's not that we don't feel some of that too, but the duty thing and all that, ya know...
Is it that, or is it like everything else is with the DUmmies? They benefit from what others deserve? In this case, they are the opposite of collateral damage, but more like collateral people defended.
-
Chrissie "tingle up my leg" Matthews is insinuating that Huckabee should be charged with sedition.
-
Chrissie "tingle up my leg" Matthews is insinuating that Huckabee should be charged with sedition.
Not surprised in the least.
Remember when dissent was Patriotic?
-
Chrissie "tingle up my leg" Matthews is insinuating that Huckabee should be charged with sedition.
Sedition or treason should have been considered as charges against the entire media during the Vietnam War.
-
Upon some reflection on the drive in this moring, I think that what Huckabee said is the wrong message to send to current and potential members of the military...especially if he's thinking of running for President.
He's asking us to choose sides in a profession where we serve the President no matter whether we voted for him or not and it's wrong to try and convince us to do so based on the superficial "logic" of "don't join until there's someone with an 'R' by their name".
I've served under more Dem Presidents than I have Republican ones.
My son always tells me they took an oath to protect the Constitution, not to serve one man. Yes, they serve at the pleasure of the president but they swear no oath to him or any other man. 0bama is a horrid CinC.
Cindie