|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Is the US Military... busted?
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Is the US Military... busted?
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| GeoDaddy |
Part of the Liberal/Left script is that our military is stretched to the breaking... if not already broken...
Well, again, for anyone who has any knowledge of History... compared to WHEN, exactly???
Surely not during Valley Forge when MORE colonialist were signing up for the British forces than were joining the Continental Army. In 1812, we couldn't find an army to defend Washington DC. The shortages during the Civil War were so bad that Lincoln had into institute a "darft" for which there was NO bais in the Constitution (which is one of the reason that Lincoln was called a "dictator" by Democrats way back when...)
WWI? WWII? Korea? Vietnam?
Let's face it - under ANY clear headed analysis - our stress on the military (even augmented with the darft) was always at a point where the nation was on the edge of a war it couldn't even take part in, let alone win...
During the entire Cold War, we lived under the policy of MAD and that was the ONLY reason that the Soviets didn't overrun our troops in Europe in a land war we could never have won...
And now - a bunch of thugs in Iraq and Afghanistan have BROKEN THE AMERICAN MILITARY???
Are people so Historically ignorant they are INSANE???
But don't take my word for it...
Peter Brooks does a fine run down that details the several possible threats and how our response would be with our easily available forces... mostly sea power and air power. |
|
|
| mad_dog |
| The military has never updated their threat training. For years we trained for a war with the Soviet Union and never suspected two guys in a john boat could almost sink one of the most advanced warships in the world (Uss Cole). Until they learn there are no rules on the war on terror can we stop this threat. |
|
|
| GeoDaddy |
But I don't think this is necessarily a bad evoluitio for US to go thru...
It made perfect sense to prepare for the next conventional war simply because the Soivet Union threatened to overrun Europe and China threatened to overrun Asia throughout the Cold War.
But Russia is decomposing and China has been transformed it (get this!) the most "Kapilatist" country in the world today... (don't think so? try to form a workers union in Shanghai)
India is throwing in with US
And no Muslim nation would survive more than a month of a conventional war with US.
No, our military is transitioning into a smaller, tighter fighting force of the many little wars that we will be fighting to maintain our hold on Pax Americana...
One could even thing of Iraq and Afghanistan as OJT!
But here's Pete's analysis...
The Next Threats
Military Able – but stretched
Peter Brooks
March 26, 2007 -- THE U.S. military has now made over 2 million individual deployments to Iraq and or Afghanistan. The preponderance, of course, has been our "ground-pounding" soldiers and Marines - many on multiple tours.
This high ground-force operational tempo ("ops tempo") has led some to declare our military nearly broken, incapable of handling another major conflict - that is, lacking in what military planners call "strategic depth."
Legit concerns. But we're not at "mission impossible" - yet.
Yes, our active-duty and reserve ground forces are tired - and understandably so. So is their equipment after four years of wear and tear in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker has issued strong warnings to Congress about repeat deployments and their toll on the army's health and welfare. The Marines, ever reluctant to complain, concur.
The Army/Marine ops tempo should give us pause. But that doesn't mean Uncle Sam can't handle another fight if necessary - thanks to the Navy and Air Force.
Sure, it would be tough, but let me explain:
Outside of Iraq/Afghanistan, the three conflicts most likely to involve America are a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, a China-Taiwan dust-up and another Korean-peninsula war.
Not minor military matters, but with the arguable exception of Korea, they could all be fought using heavy doses of sea and air power, which, fortunately, aren't stretched as thin as our ground forces.
Iran: An attack would likely be executed by U.S. air and sea strikes, not ground forces (but don't count out special ops).
Air Force B-2 bombers and F-117, F-15 and F-16 strike fighters would drop GPS-guided JDAM and gravity bombs on Iranian air defenses, nuclear facilities and retaliatory forces such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The Navy would chime in with carrier-based aviation and surface ships orsubmarines in the Persian Gulf and the North Arabian Sea, dropping bombs and firing cruise missiles at Iran's nuclear sites, air defenses and naval assets.
China-Taiwan: While the chance of a conflict across the Taiwan Strait is remote, China's defense buildup and recent Taiwanese rhetoric about "independence" keeps this possibility at the front of war planners' minds.
Fortunately, a Chinese attack on Taiwan must navigate the 100-mile-wide Taiwan Strait. China doesn't have the air- and sea-lift capability to support a full-scale invasion of Taiwan - so it would have to rely on ballistic missiles and sea and air power.
The U.S. objective would be to protect the political status quo, using air and naval forces to break Chinese naval blockades, counter air or missile strikes and vanquish sea- or airborne invasion forces as they cross the strait.
Korea: A Korean contingency would normally call for significant U.S. ground forces. But the 28,000 American and 650,000 South Korean troops now "in country" could fight a holding action until the U.S. cavalry - forces not deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan or the Persian Gulf - arrived.
South Korea's ground forces alone are more than a match for the North Korean People's Army - which, while still dangerous, is a shell of what it was back in the days when Pyongyang was getting military aid from the Soviet Union. The United States would quickly add naval and air assets to throw the fight in our direction.
Missile defenses are already deployed for dealing with North Korea's long-range missile and nuclear capability. These - and theater missile defenses - are constantly being developed and improved.
But, while the Navy and Air Force can respond, we shouldn't feel comfortable with the way things stand. We're looking down the barrel of a "hollow force" if trends in defense spending and ops tempo for all services don't change.
The Army and Marines are finally adding troops after 1990s cutbacks. But at the same time, the Navy and Air Force are cutting personnel in a "rob Peter to pay Paul" strategy to finance needed weapons systems.
It's hard to believe, but U.S. defense spending remains at historic lows as a percentage of gross domestic product, despite the large budgets since 9/11. This isn't good for our national security - or fair to our fighting men and women. It's encouraging to adversaries.
There's plenty of blame to go around. Finger-pointing makes for good political sport, but fixing the problem instead of assigning blame is what counts. Congress needs to act quickly. Raising and maintaining our armed forces is its constitutional duty. Anything less than giving our military the wherewithal to take on the challenges to our national security in unacceptable - and dangerous.
Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow Peter Brookes is a retired Navy Reserve commander and former deputy assistant secretary of defense.
peterbrookes@heritage.org |
|
|
| vegaseric |
Quote: Originally posted by GeoDaddy
Part of the Liberal/Left script is that our military is stretched to the breaking... if not already broken...
Well, again, for anyone who has any knowledge of History... compared to WHEN, exactly???
Surely not during Valley Forge when MORE colonialist were signing up for the British forces than were joining the Continental Army. In 1812, we couldn't find an army to defend Washington DC. The shortages during the Civil War were so bad that Lincoln had into institute a "darft" for which there was NO bais in the Constitution (which is one of the reason that Lincoln was called a "dictator" by Democrats way back when...)
WWI? WWII? Korea? Vietnam?
Let's face it - under ANY clear headed analysis - our stress on the military (even augmented with the darft) was always at a point where the nation was on the edge of a war it couldn't even take part in, let alone win...
During the entire Cold War, we lived under the policy of MAD and that was the ONLY reason that the Soviets didn't overrun our troops in Europe in a land war we could never have won...
And now - a bunch of thugs in Iraq and Afghanistan have BROKEN THE AMERICAN MILITARY???
Are people so Historically ignorant they are INSANE???
But don't take my word for it...
Peter Brooks does a fine run down that details the several possible threats and how our response would be with our easily available forces... mostly sea power and air power. |
Who declared them thugs...YOU? |
|
|
| booybob |
Sea power might be at risk because Iran,China and Russia have the sunburn missle which is made to destroy aircraft carriers. It is a mach 3 weapon that flies 20-30' about the sea and con move at right and left angles to avoid being shot down.
Navy Lacks Plan To
Defend Against
'Carrier-Destroying' Missile
By Chuck Baldwin
3-24-7
March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile, according to current and former officials and Defense Department documents.
The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed by China and may be purchased by
Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.
The Defense Department's weapons-testing office judges the threat so serious that its director, Charles McQueary, warned the Pentagon's chief weapons-buyer in a memo that he would move to stall production of multibillion-dollar ship and missile programs until the issue was addressed.
``This is a carrier-destroying weapon,'' said Orville Hanson, who evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with the Navy. ``That's its purpose.''
``Take out the carriers'' and China ``can walk into Taiwan,'' he said. China bought the missiles in 2002 along with eight diesel submarines designed to fire it, according to Office of Naval Intelligence spokesman Robert Althage.
A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Russia also offered the missile to Iran, although there's no evidence a sale has gone through. In Iranian hands, the Sizzler could challenge the ability of the U.S. Navy to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, through which an estimated 25 percent of the world's oil traffic flows.
Fast and Low-Flying
``This is a very low-flying, fast missile,'' said retired Rear Admiral Eric McVadon, a former U.S. naval attache in Beijing. ``It won't be visible until it's quite close. By the time you detect it to the time it hits you is very short. You'd want to know your capabilities to handle this sort of missile.''
The Navy's ship-borne Aegis system, deployed on cruisers and destroyers starting in the early 1980s, is designed to protect aircraft-carrier battle groups from missile attacks. But current and former officials say the Navy has no assurance Aegis, built by Lockheed Martin Corp., is capable of detecting, tracking and intercepting the Sizzler.
``This was an issue when I walked in the door in 2001,'' Thomas Christie, the Defense Department's top weapons-testing official from mid-2001 to early 2005, said in an interview.
`A Major Issue'
``The Navy recognized this was a major issue, and over the years, I had continued promises they were going to fully fund development and production'' of missiles that could replicate the Sizzler to help develop a defense against it, Christie said. ``They haven't.''
The effect is that in a conflict, the U.S. ``would send a billion-dollar platform loaded with equipment and crew into harm's way without some sort of confidence that we could defeat what is apparently a threat very near on the horizon,'' Christie said.
The Navy considered developing a program to test against the Sizzler ``but has no plans in the immediate future to initiate such a developmental effort,'' Naval Air Systems Command spokesman Rob Koon said in an e-mail.
Lieutenant Bashon Mann, a Navy spokesman, said the service is aware of the Sizzler's capabilities and is ``researching suitable alternatives'' to defend against it. ``U.S. naval warships have a layered defense capability that can defend against various missile threats,'' Mann said.
Raising Concerns
McQueary, head of the Pentagon's testing office, raised his concerns about the absence of Navy test plans for the missile in a Sept. 8, 2006, memo to Ken Krieg, undersecretary of defense for acquisition. He also voiced concerns to Deputy Secretary England.
In the memo, McQuery said that unless the Sizzler threat was addressed, his office wouldn't approve test plans necessary for production to begin on several other projects, including Northrop Grumman Corp.'s new $35.8 billion CVN-21 aircraft-carrier project; the $36.5 billion DDG-1000 destroyer project being developed by Northrop and General Dynamics Corp.; and two Raytheon Corp. projects, the $6 billion Standard Missile-6 and $1.1 billion Ship Self Defense System.
Charts prepared by the Navy for a February 2005 briefing for defense contractors said the Sizzler, which is also called the SS-N-27B, starts out flying at subsonic speeds. Within 10 nautical miles of its target, a rocket-propelled warhead separates and accelerates to three times the speed of sound, flying no more than 10 meters (33 feet) above sea level.
Final Approach
On final approach, the missile ``has the potential to perform very high defensive maneuvers,'' including sharp-angled dodges, the Office of Naval Intelligence said in a manual on worldwide maritime threats.
The Sizzler is ``unique,'' the Defense Science Board, an independent agency within the Pentagon that provides assessments of major defense issues, said in an October 2005 report. Most anti-ship cruise missiles fly below the speed of sound and on a straight path, making them easier to track and target.
McQueary, in a March 16 e-mailed statement, said that ``to the best of our knowledge,'' the Navy hasn't started a test program or responded to the board's recommendations. ``The Navy may be reluctant to invest in development of a new target, given their other bills,'' he said.
`Aggressively Marketing'
The Sizzler's Russian maker, state-run Novator Design Bureau in Yekaterinburg, is ``aggressively marketing'' the weapon at international arms shows, said Steve Zaloga, a missile analyst with the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based defense research organization. Among other venues, the missile was pitched at last month's IDEX 2007, the Middle East's largest weapons exposition, he said.
Zaloga provided a page from Novator's sales brochure depicting the missile.
Alexander Uzhanov, a spokesman for the Moscow-based Russian arms-export agency Rosoboronexport, which oversees Novator, declined to comment.
McVadon, who has written about the Chinese navy, called the Sizzler ``right now the most pertinent and pressing threat the U.S. faces in the case of a Taiwan conflict.'' Jane's, the London-based defense information group, reported in 2005 in its publication ``Missiles and Rockets'' that Russia had offered the missile to Iran as part of a sale in the 1990s of three Kilo- class submarines.
That report was confirmed by the Pentagon official who requested anonymity. The Office of Naval Intelligence suggested the same thing in a 2004 report, highlighting in its assessment of maritime threats Iran's possible acquisition of additional Russian diesel submarines ``with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles.''
The Defense Science Board, in its 2005 report, recommended that the Navy ``immediately implement'' a plan to produce a surrogate Sizzler that could be used for testing.
``Time is of the essence here,'' the board said.
To contact the reporters on this story: Tony Capaccio at at acapaccio@bloomnberg.net |
|
|
| vegaseric |
| In a major war with Russia or China...both sides will lose a lot. Shit, we and they could wipe out the naval fleets and then we're fucked. Both sides will lose. Do you think that russia and china will defend their fleets or cities against our attack? Both sides will lose regardless of how "ready" we are. |
|
|
| Crazytree |
interesting thread.
I especially love how vegaseric is pretending like he knows the first thing about our nation's military. :p |
|
|
| vegaseric |
| Considering I'm a product of the military and I've been around it for the first 17 years of my life I would say I know a little bit. Do you have any friends in Iraq right now? How long have you been in or around the military? |
|
|
| Crazytree |
I have friends in Iraq and I have friends about to go to Iraq. Several, from several branches.
I served. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
I have friends in Iraq and I have friends about to go to Iraq. Several, from several branches.
I served. |
*flush*
:crapper: |
|
|
| vegaseric |
Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
I have friends in Iraq and I have friends about to go to Iraq. Several, from several branches.
I served. |
Crazytree, then stop acting like you're the only one. |
|
|
| GeoDaddy |
"thugs" coming from thee Indian world - describing people who would not on rob people (i.e. follow more than the money) but cut off their fingers, their toes, their genitals... all so that they dismemebered person would beg for death... then they would let someone go to tell the others what "thugs" this gang is...
Sorry if you haven't been watching the news, but people who kidnap innocent people (or gultly for that matter as liberals seem to have a big problem with the treatment of criminals kept at Abu Grabby and Gitmo... but, as this poetasters, simply ignore the otherside) make them beg for their lives and webcast their murder... strike me as "thugs"
But I'd love to know how much more "thuggish" they need to become to impress You as "thugs"? ? ?
Yes, I call 'em "thugs" as I call tem Islamists - not "terrorists" - because I am not a politicians and have no need to couch my terms for political expediency.
Thugs!
And they were thugs from the first day that the Muslim Brotherhood ran down a journalist who dared write about them in the streets of Cairo and proceeded to beat him to a bloody pulp daring anyone in the crowd to come to his defence... back in 1937!
Thugs!
g |
|
|
| GeoDaddy |
Again, you have to read between the lines of the military analysis...
Where are we going to get into DIRECT and CONVENTIONAL conflict with Russia or China?
Europe? no. Tibet? no. China would have to cross an entire sea to get to Taiwan for US to take military action in the form of air and sea power - exclusiovely. (And, the latest in diplomatic activity has Taiwan moving closer to a peacful submssion to the mainland along the lines of Hong Kong...)
The only places that we could get involved in a ground war is Korea or Iran...
And we don't need to go into Korea... the South Korean army is perfectly able to take care of itself... and, if it isn't, it might serve our purpose better if South Korea was overrun... it would put to shame the anti-american demonstrations that South Korean students have staged.
Which leaves Iran... and THAT is EXACTLY where we should be going (and it is no accident that we have the largest mechanized force deploted in the world today, right there to do the job... no accident.)
Are Carriers Super - targets.
Duh' Wake up. That is war. You risk big chess pieces... or you don't play the game.
While the Carrriers remains vulnerable to submarine and missle atttack... attacking a US Carriers would be suicidal for any military because it would unleash the most hoirrific reponse the world has ever seen... and we would just need to pick our targets...
Americans seem ignorant of the fact (while the world is not) that with all the disarmament since the Cold War, we maintain the Triad - the ability to launch nukes from Land, Sea and Air. And we don't need "big" nukes. We have "tactical" nukes that can limit the destruction to an area of our choosing... like an Iranian We Want Nukes Too camp... posioning the surrounding area with radiation that would make trying to dig out what might survive like playing Glow Ball at Chernobyl...
All we lack is the "cassus beli" - the reason sufficiently "high" enuff for US to "Cry Havoc and let slip the Dogs of War" - people around the world don't listen to US because they "like" US, or they admire our "freedoms" (Heck, Islamists HATE our freedoms as causing the ruination of their civilization!) But they do respect that fact that we could simply bomb them beyond the stone age... and we wouldn't even have to sloppy about it!
For all the "failure" of Iraq - the one impression that it left on every THUG leader around the world was that - given the right provacation - the American people could turn on a dime from being - BORED - with the war (because that is all it really comes down to since so few have ANY real contact with what we are doing in Afghanistan or Iraq) from BORED to PISSED!
And, from the Mullahs in Iran to that tinpot puppet in korea... we could unleash destructiove power never seen before...
We only need to WILL to use what we have and not really give a shit about the consequences...
"Will Iran become a "decent" democracy? Who gives a shit - if they fire a missile at one of our carriesrs - they will have 50 billion in surplus smart bombs taking out every asset they have... and the UN will protest our aggression.
g
"military broke?"
get f-ing REAL! |
|
|
| GeoDaddy |
| p.s. I think we are down to nine carrier groups... the rest of the world has "one" comparable to one of the two we have swimming around Iran... |
|
|
| GeoDaddy |
Broken Military?
Check out Great Britian - once the Greatest Sea Power Man had ever known...
(I would have entitled it "Rue Britiannia")
Britain’s Impotence
By Arthur Herman
March 28, 2007 -- IT'S been a tough month for the British Navy. On March 7, it learned that Tony Blair's Labor government was going ahead with drastic cuts in its budget and number of ships. By this time next year, the once-vaunted Royal Navy will be about the size of the Belgian Navy, while its officers face a five-year moratorium on all promotions.
If that wasn't demoralizing enough, last Friday the Iranian Navy seized a patrol boat containing 15 British sailors and Marines, claiming they'd crossed into Iranian waters. They're now hostages and may well go on trial as spies.
The latest report is that the Britons were ready to fight off their abductors. Certainly their escorting ship, HMS Cornwall, could have blown the Iranian naval vessel out of the water. However, at the last minute the British Ministry of Defense ordered the Cornwall not to fire, and her captain and crew were forced to watch their shipmates led away into captivity.
There was a question whether the Blair government would end up leaving Britain with a navy too small to protect its shores. Now it seems to want a navy that can't even protect its own sailors.
For some time, Tony Blair has been trying to show that for all his support of President Bush, he is no warmonger. He has been a consistent "softliner" on Iran's nuclear program, supporting the Europeans' search for a diplomatic solution and repeatedly insisting that any military options be taken off the table.
Since January, the Blair government has broadcast its intentions of gutting the Royal Navy's surface fleet. At the same time, it also announced its plans for withdrawing 2,500 British troops from Iraq. The result? First, the Royal Navy is finished as a credible military force. Second, the British Army's redeployment from Basra has been widely interpreted as abandonment of the Iraq mission, rather than as moving on to Afghanistan after a job well done, as Blair insists.
And now the Iranians have hostages with which to wring more concessions from the British - including perhaps withdrawal of British vessels from the Coalition task force guarding the Persian Gulf.
The mullahs in Tehran clearly see the new pacifist trend in Britain not as a hopeful sign of future accord, but as supine surrender. Just as clearly, they have singled out Britain as the latest weak link in the Coalition fighting in Iraq and in the War on Terror.
If the Iranians can force Britain to join the other European powers on the sidelines in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan (where most NATO nations devote their time to finding excuses for not risking their soldiers' lives in combat), they will have virtually completed America's isolation from the rest of the world community. In effect, America's only reliable ally in Iraq and the War on Terror will be Australia - and a change of government there could well mean the loss of that ally, as well.
This will be a tragedy - but not for America. The United States has grown used to doing the fighting and dying the other industrialized democracies refuse to do in order to defend themselves and their interests.
Britain has been an exception. In places like Bosnia and the Persian Gulf, and in operations like Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom, its help has been solid and genuine, as well as important in a symbolic sense. America always looks better when a couple of frigates flying the Royal Navy's White Ensignare side by side with those flying the Stars and Stripes. U.S. sailors also know that in a real fight, the men of the Royal Navy, which our navy men still call the "Senior Service," will never let them down.
That contribution has never been vital to America - yet it was a badge of honor for Britain. It had echoes of past glory as an empire, of course, but also of Britain's historic role as protector of a civilized and stable world order, and specifically the role of the Royal Navy. The British navy had wiped out the slave trade; it had single-handedly defied tyrants from Louis XIV and Napoleon to Hitler; and it served as midwife to the ideas of free trade and the balance of power.
Now those days are gone for good. Yet, if today's Britons thought that by shedding that historic responsibility they could buy themselves some peace of mind, the current hostage crisis has just proved them wrong.
Seventy years ago, another generation of British politicians believed that disarming themselves would help ease world tensions after World War One. Farsighted and progressive planners cut the Royal Navy by nearly two-thirds and ceased the fortification of vital naval bases like Singapore so as not to alarm other powers. In the name of international peace, Britain signed treaties formally limiting the size of its fleet, and as late as 1935 reached an accord with Adolf Hitler allowing him to build the submarine fleet that the Versailles Treaty had denied him.
Six years later, Hitler's U-boats were turned loose to harry British shipping and the Japanese stormed into Singapore, forcing the greatest mass surrender in British history.
Today, British politicians seem determined to make the same mistake. They exude the spirit not of Winston Churchill or Margaret Thatcher but of diplomat and Labor Party stalwart Harold Nicolson, who used to sigh to friends in the dark days after France's surrender in 1940: "All we can do is lie on our backs with our paws in the air and hope that no one will stamp on our tummies."
The capture of 15 British sailors should serve as a warning. Nations cannot "opt out" of their responsibilities in the War on Terror when they feel it, like players in a pickup basketball game or cricket match.
Enemies like the mullahs and their terrorist allies recognize no time outs, no neutral ground. They see only strength and weakness, those nations they can manipulate and those they have to fear. Today they clearly feel they can pull the British lion's tail with impunity.
If the hostages are finally released unharmed, it will have a lot more to do with the presence of two American carrier groups off the Iranian coast than anything Blair is doing - and the British will have learned that what they really lost when they gave up their fleet and abandoned the fight in Iraq is their own self-respect.
Arthur Herman's latest book is "To Rule the Waves: How the British Navy Shaped the Modern World." His next book, on Gandhi and Churchill, is due out next year. |
|
|
| GeoDaddy |
Hmmm...
This isn't gonna be much fun if the Liberal/Left isn't going to deluge me with facts that contradict mine ? ? ?
Com'on, peeps! The Liberal/Left SCRIPT is to profess that "We Support the Troops - but abhor the War"
Well, quite honestly, that sounds like every girl who said she "loved" be but wasn't "in" love with moi (a heck of a lot of good that does for me... or the troops, huh?)
Now the Liberal/Left is moviong away from their support (starting with John Kerry suggesting that only "stoopid" people would serve their country... followied by the NBS "military analyst" who called the troops "mercenaries" and just recently, hooded antiwat activists stopping just short of "baby killers")
All of this is suppose to reflect how the military is "broken" the military men "demoralized" and how we are no longer military ready to fight another war...
Well, to harked back to a post that drew me to this site...
"What Military Action might a Liberal Support???"
Are Liberals gonna okay a land war against the Koreans.. no.
Are Liberals gonna back an air/sea response to the Chinese Armada... no.
Are Liberals gonna chekc yes to a military take down on Iranian nuclear sites... of course not. The Liberal Mentality is
WELL IF WE HAVE NUKES - THEN THE IRANIANS HAVE JUST AS MUCH RIGHT TO HAVE NUKES TOO!
The fact that Iran, being lewf by a nihilistic, religious self justified leadership would actually USE their nukes seems to be a minor issue.
But I'm just waiting for the resident poetasters to contast a military in the world today that makes America look like we are wasting our money...
(And don't say the Israelis 'casue they just lost their first war since their inception and their military is borrowed and bought from our arsenal...)
g |
|
|
| GeoDaddy |
Think on it...
Nine (9) Carrier groups to roam the Seven Seas...
And the ability for Stealth bombers and good ol' B52s to flatten any section of the four corners of the earth... and be home in Kansas by dinner time...
What military in History has been so "broken?"
g |
|
|
| vegaseric |
| I think it's this...they think that since the numbers are not over 5 million soldiers...it's broken. I like what you said. |
|
|
| GeoDaddy |
Well, I'll go further out on a limb...
You know how all the "experts" are saying that "We needed MORE troops... 700,000 to invade Iraq."
It's great when everyone looked back with 20-20 hindsight as to what SHOULD have been done... blah, blah, blah.
But I have one question (along the lines of what happened to all the "military" Iraqis killed in this war... we only see "civilians" but we are fighting people who don't wear a uniform... so every person admited to the hosptial or morgue is technically a "civilian" right?)
700,000 of our bravest...
TO DO WHAT!
Are we saying that we should have put 700,000 troops into the streets of Baghdada and the smaller cesspools and let the "insurgents" take pot shots at them...
We don't even dare use the troops we have to take part in any "military" mission. The last serious mission I recall was rooting the thugs outta Falluja - after - the election.
I say - if we weren't will to use the troops we had - effectively - more troops would have merely meant more casualities.
History may well look back on this war plan (if this final "surge" succeeds to birnging the Shia and Sunni together to bargain like Dems and Reps) as BRILLIANT! "The United States put in just enough force to decapitate the regime... then stood back and let the Iraqis fight it outr amongst themselves... bleeding dry the most viscious of the fighters and exhausting the homicide bombers... stepping only in at the end, when sufficient Iraq troops were trained to hold the blocks that the US forces would clear of "civilian" combatants..."
History has a funny way of smoothing over the day-to-day stratefies of war. Let's remember the Revolution and Civil War were LOSING causes... right up until the last few months.
Poor Dems if this surge technique of going block to block works out...
They will be out of power like the "Peace Democrats of the 1860s who declared the Civil War a "lost cause" until we won... and they could get into the White House until the entire Union Army - who remembered their two-faced "support - died off...
g |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by GeoDaddy
Think on it...
Nine (9) Carrier groups to roam the Seven Seas...
And the ability for Stealth bombers and good ol' B52s to flatten any section of the four corners of the earth... and be home in Kansas by dinner time...
What military in History has been so "broken?"
g |
Yeah, and we can't even stabilize a 3rd world country...gee, how incompetent must our leadership really be??? Criminally so...?
Yep. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by GeoDaddy
Well, I'll go further out on a limb...
You know how all the "experts" are saying that "We needed MORE troops... 700,000 to invade Iraq."
It's great when everyone looked back with 20-20 hindsight as to what SHOULD have been done... blah, blah, blah. |
May the God of Thunder strike me down for being shocked a stupid cockroach never heard of Gen. Shinseki...
Whatta World Class A-hole. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by GeoDaddy
Well, I'll go further out on a limb... |
Why? You've already hung yourself. Stupid cockroach, thinking's for thinkers...you are going to hurt yourself.
Quote: Originally posted by GeoDaddy
They will be out of power like the "Peace Democrats of the 1860s who declared the Civil War a "lost cause" until we won... and they could get into the White House until the entire Union Army - who remembered their two-faced "support - died off... |
Your ass-pal Stumpy will tell you "we" lost...
Stonewall "Whackson"
Senior Snowballer (gulp!)
Jerkin' Off
Posting Frequency_______
Spamming Like a MoFo...
________________________________________
"Let us cross over the river and corn-hole each other under the shade of the trees." Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Whackson...jerkin' it since 1869:jackoff::ass2mouth:69::slapcum::bruno::blow:
Idiot. |
|
|
| vegaseric |
| fdubya....that was.....well informed information wow |
|
|
| GeoDaddy |
Actually the "700K" was an EXACT reference to Shinseki...
The anti-war crowd glomed onto that one general's prediction because it served their immediate purpose... but that is ONE of several generals of over a hundred that threw out one prediction that simply was not time tested... either i..e had we gone in with 700K - cannibalizing our forces around the world... WE HAD NO ASSURANCE THAT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN ANY DIFFERENT OUTCOME THAN WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH NOW.
Why?
Becuase we weren't even willing to use the 100K that we had there in a way that we are using them NOW - deploying them in the city and provinces that are most dangerous. For the greatest part of time and troops... we have been sticking close to our several bases and merely running patrols to recon what's happening... but, with the exception of Falluja and a couple of other brief strikes.. we really have to sitting back.
700K used in the SAME WAY would only have given the Islamist more targets to shoot at and slip IDEs in their way...
Or FDubya gonna argue that the Islamists who have no fear of taking potshots at a 100K army would have been cowed into submission by 700K ? ? ?
Fact is - Bright Boy - that the LARGEST POLICE FORCE IN THE WORLD (larger than most countries armies) the NYPD can't stop all the crime in Manhattan and the surrounding suburbs.
And, in Iraq, all the King's Horses and all of Men can stop Shia and Sunni from killing each other.. until they realize that neither side can win.
What we CAN DO - and HAVE DONE - is be that 800lb Gorilla that simply sits there are prevents and all out Civil War from breaking our and drawing in the Persians on one side and the Gulf States on the other... a war that would look like REAL Civil War Beirut in the 70s, 80s!
Or Russia in the 1930s
Or France in the 1800s
Two great examples of who people go from a Dictatorship (in the name of a "king") to a fledgling democracy... before disintegrating into total chaos and coming out embracing fascism in the name of Napoleon or Communism in the name of Stalin.
Geez... I wish people knew a little bit about History (other than the world started with the Vietnam War and ended with draft dodging and peace rallies and the victory of cut & run w/o consequence... except, of course, for those Asians on whom the whole Hell of communism cam crashing down on their heads once we walked away.
But Veg'
Don't be too ruff on FDub...
You will note that he is the only Leftist on the board that is sticking up for their agenda... it's like listening to dopey Scott Eisinger trying to recall what Rush said on any issue while Howard just lets him dig his hole deeper and deeper.
Let's face it - the best way to win a media arguement is to let the ill informed kook argue your position and end up having to say "Oh, yeah, well, you're a fat head" to admit that they ran out of script...
Whadda ya think would happen to Iran if they grabbed American soldeirs hostage?
I mean other than FDb who, along with Rosie, would act as the Iranian "Tokyo Rose" - obviously the Iranians don't wanna test that water.
THAT is how you know your enemies respect your military (and no longer respect exGreat Britian's)
They keep their distance!
g |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by GeoDummy
Actually the "700K" was an EXACT reference to Shinseki...
The anti-war crowd glomed onto that one general's prediction because it served their immediate purpose... but that is ONE of several generals of over a hundred that threw out one prediction that simply was not time tested... |
...ever hear of the "Powell Doctrine" shit-stick??? Bwahahahahahaahah!!!! Your post is too ridiculous for words! You are literally talking out your ass...
Speaking of "exact", it was more like 400K...
GeoDummy: what a dreamer.
:rdf: |
|
|
| GeoDaddy |
Yes, the Powell "doctrine that was implemented in the FIRST phase of the War agiainst Saddam... choosing to leave him in power... giveing him his helicopter gunships... which he promptly used to slaughter the Shia who rose against him at the urging of that same administration that embraced the Powell doctrine of not fighting a wat w/o a clear objective...
Turns out that merely driving Saddam from Kuwat was NOT a clear objective because it left him in power, he continued to preside over the most GENOCIDAL regime the world has seen since Pol Pot and the only thing that kept Saddam and Sons at bay were the US/UK flyboys who risked their lives EVERY DAY for 12 years trying to contain him... as our "ally: France and the UN made EIGHT BILLION Euor/Dollars underminig our efforts - the largest financial scandal in History.
I'd say that History will show tha Powel's "doctrine" fell a little bit short of Napoleon's Doctrine...
(too paraphrase)
"If you are gonna take Baghdada - take Baghdad!"
Don't think you can get away in the cheap by liberating Kuwait and leaving in place all the forces that turned that propped up nation state into a province overnight... in place.
I do agree with Powell on the other hand, his Potter Barn adage... "you Break it - You own it!"
We broke Saddam 30 year genocidal rule (who, oddly enouff, the world self described "liberals" were for supporting his genocidal regime and had no problem witgh him handing it over to his sons...) and now we OWN the afftermath...
So buck, stick it out and take responsibilty. Keep the peace and give the Sunnis and Shia a chance to see that it is in their own best interests to play togerther in a place called Iraq - because - if they lose that national idenitify - they will be consumed by the surrounding states after a verfy bloody civil war.
So which Powell Doctrine do YOU subscribe to???
The one that failed
or
The one that suggests that ONLY a coward would quit.
g |
|
|
| GeoDaddy |
And actually the quote was "several hundred thousand" from Shinseki...
Feel free to go to answer.com and check out which "several" hundred thousand suggests... 400,000 or 700,000?
g |
|
|
| johnsonrod |
Quote: Originally posted by GeoDaddy
Yes, the Powell "doctrine that was implemented in the FIRST phase of the War agiainst Saddam... choosing to leave him in power... giveing him his helicopter gunships... which he promptly used to slaughter the Shia who rose against him at the urging of that same administration that embraced the Powell doctrine of not fighting a wat w/o a clear objective...
Turns out that merely driving Saddam from Kuwat was NOT a clear objective because it left him in power, he continued to preside over the most GENOCIDAL regime the world has seen since Pol Pot and the only thing that kept Saddam and Sons at bay were the US/UK flyboys who risked their lives EVERY DAY for 12 years trying to contain him... as our "ally: France and the UN made EIGHT BILLION Euor/Dollars underminig our efforts - the largest financial scandal in History.
I'd say that History will show tha Powel's "doctrine" fell a little bit short of Napoleon's Doctrine...
(too paraphrase)
"If you are gonna take Baghdada - take Baghdad!"
Don't think you can get away in the cheap by liberating Kuwait and leaving in place all the forces that turned that propped up nation state into a province overnight... in place.
I do agree with Powell on the other hand, his Potter Barn adage... "you Break it - You own it!"
We broke Saddam 30 year genocidal rule (who, oddly enouff, the world self described "liberals" were for supporting his genocidal regime and had no problem witgh him handing it over to his sons...) and now we OWN the afftermath...
So buck, stick it out and take responsibilty. Keep the peace and give the Sunnis and Shia a chance to see that it is in their own best interests to play togerther in a place called Iraq - because - if they lose that national idenitify - they will be consumed by the surrounding states after a verfy bloody civil war.
So which Powell Doctrine do YOU subscribe to???
The one that failed
or
The one that suggests that ONLY a coward would quit.
g |
Fuck dude, you put that beautiful.
It really is interesting to hear the left start sounding like Pat Buchanan on foreign policy.
You're right, we got here by half-assing it. More half-assing probably won't fix it. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by GeoDummy
So which Powell Doctrine do YOU subscribe to??? |
...the only "one" there is, ignorant cockroach:
:rdf:
Quote:
The Powell Doctrine, also known as the Powell Doctrine of Overwhelming Force, was elaborated by General Colin Powell in the run up to the 1990-1991 Gulf War. It is based in large part on the Weinberger Doctrine, devised by Caspar Weinberger, former Secretary of Defense and Powell's former boss.
The questions posed by the Powell Doctrine, which should be answered affirmatively before military action, are:
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?
The fifth point of the Doctrine is normally interpreted to mean that the U.S. should not get involved in peacekeeping or nation-building exercises. Powell expanded upon the Doctrine, asserting that when a nation is engaging in war, every resource and tool should be used to achieve overwhelming force against the enemy, minimizing US casualties and ending the conflict quickly by forcing the weaker force to capitulate. This is well in line with Western military strategy dating at least from Carl von Clausewitz's On War. However, in the context of the Just War theory, the doctrine of overwhelming force may violate the principle of proportionality. |
Of course, none of those questions raised in the Powell Doctrine were able to be answered in the "affirmative" by the Bush Admin Chicken-hawks. That's why they marginalized the generals (like Shinseki) who were students of the Doctrine.
Dumbsfeld and Dickless thought they knew better. No post-war planning at all. Visions of flowers and candy dancing in their heads.
Fools. Vermin.
...And speaking of "time tested", how's "dating at least from Carl von Clausewitz's On War"...strike ya? Bwahahahahaha!!! What a clueless clown!!!
GeoDummy: simply too stupid to know he's dead.
:rdf: |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by GeoDummy
And actually the quote was "several hundred thousand" from Shinseki...Feel free to go to answer.com and check out which "several" hundred thousand suggests... 400,000 or 700,000?g |
Yeah, but in the surrounding discussion the numbers were openly discussed. I guess you weren't paying attention. People knew of the DoD's "Contingency Plan" for Iraq, which Shinseki knew inside out...:
Quote: Originally posted by Wiki
Apart from issues of "personality clash", Shinseki and Rumsfeld approached military dogma with significant substantive differences. For example, following September 11, 2001, Rumsfeld was in a meeting whose subject was the review of the Department of Defense's (Contingency) Plan in the event of a war with Iraq (U. S. Central Command OPLAN 1003-98). (See, e.g., Chapter 1 of Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq (Gordon and Trainor, 2006)) The plan (as it was then conceived) contemplated troop levels of up to 500,000, which Rumsfeld opined was far too many. As Gordon and Trainor write:
As [General] Newbold outlined the plan . . . it was clear that Rumsfeld was growing increasingly irritated. For Rumsfeld, the plan required too many troops and supplies and took far too long to execute. It was, Rumsfeld declared "The product of old thinking and the embodiment of everything that was wrong with the military."
* * *
[T]he Plan . . . reflected long-standing military principles about the force levels that were needed to defeat Iraq, control a population of more than 24 million, and secure a nation the size of California with porous borders. Rumsfeld's numbers, in contrast, seemed to be pulled out of thin air. He had dismissed one of the military's long-standing plans, and suggested his own force level without any of the generals raising a cautionary flag.
Id. [11] |
"Troop levels of UP TO 500,000"...I guess that proves NO ONE was saying 700,000, but "several hundred thousand" UP TO 500,000...thus most people's estimate of 400K.
*FLUSH*
:crapper:
Here's part of the transcript from the Shinseki exchange:
Quote: Originally posted by Wiki
On February 25, 2003, four months before the end of his term as Chief of Staff of the Army, Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he thought an occupying force of several hundred thousand men would be needed to stabilize postwar Iraq. He was pressed to provide a range by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI). Below is the exchange:
SEN. LEVIN: General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?
GEN. SHINSEKI: In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commanders' exact requirements. But I think --
SEN. LEVIN: How about a range?
GEN. SHINSEKI: I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground- force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.
Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, called Shinseki's estimate "far off the mark" [13] and "wildly off the mark". Wolfowitz said it would be "hard to believe" more troops would be required for post-war Iraq than to remove Saddam Hussein from power. [1] Specifically, Wolfowitz said to the House Budget Committee on February 27, 2003:
DEP. SEC. WOLFOWITZ: There has been a good deal of comment - some of it quite outlandish - about what our postwar requirements might be in Iraq. Some of the higher end predictions we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq, are wildly off the mark. It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army - hard to imagine.
On November 15, 2006, Gen. John P. Abizaid, chief of the U. S. Central Command, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committtee, acknowledged that in his view, and with hindsight, that Shinseki had been correct in his view that a larger post-war force was needed. Abizaid noted that this force could have included Iraqi or international forces in addition to American force: [14] [15]
SEN. Lindsay GRAHAM (Republican, S. C.): Was General Shinseki correct when you look backward that we needed more troops to secure the country, General Abizaid?
GEN. ABIZAID: General Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution, U. S. force contribution, and Iraqi force contribution should have been available immediately after major combat operations.
|
We still don't have water and power running to pre-war levels....sad...the incompetence... |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by johnsonrod
Fuck dude, you put that beautiful. |
Shut-up Stupid. You don't know your ass from your elbow.
Ignorant little cockroach Toadie. What a schmuck. |
|
|
| GeoDaddy |
Simple fact - the US and the UK are BOTH routinely stopping ships in the area in dispute... the Iranians did dare stop a US patrol boat...
Why?
Because they know that that would provide the cassu beli that we would use to take out every viable target that bothers US and not care about retaliation...
That is the strength of a Military...
And British show what is weakness...
Even with great training, technology and support.
You have to have the WILL to fight... and the Brits no longer have it.
g |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by GeoDummy
:spam: |
|
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
We still don't have water and power running to pre-war levels....sad...the incompetence... |
That's because this was never about Iraqi Freedom, it was never about Terrorism, it was never about rebuilding a country. I honestly don't see how anyone can still hold on to that bullshit that this was a War on Terror OR that this was a way of freeing the Iraqi people from a tyrannical leader.
They didn't have running water or power when Saddam was in power... and they don't have it 5 years after we took over.... what does that tell you?
Oh yeah ;) We have the Iraqi's best interests at heart! :p |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Halcyon
That's because this was never about Iraqi Freedom, it was never about Terrorism, it was never about rebuilding a country. I honestly don't see how anyone can still hold on to that bullshit that this was a War on Terror OR that this was a way of freeing the Iraqi people from a tyrannical leader.
They didn't have running water or power when Saddam was in power... and they don't have it 5 years after we took over.... what does that tell you?
Oh yeah ;) We have the Iraqi's best interests at heart! :p |
I agree with all that, except for the fact that water and power were much, much, much better under Saddam. The Iraqi's themselves are saying that...4 yrs after "Mission Accomplished"! |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
I agree with all that, except for the fact that water and power were much, much, much better under Saddam. The Iraqi's themselves are saying that...4 yrs after "Mission Accomplished"! |
That's because one of their main construction companies, Bechtel, pulled out after 2 years of being there.... because everytime they tried to restore buildings and add power/water, someone would go blow up the buildings....
And they were losing employess... oh yeah, Bechtel employed IRAQI contractors to build the buildings by the way....
Bechtel was the only stand-up company that had the balls to finally say after only two years: "You know what?! Fuck this shit, we don't care how juicy the government no-bid contract is over here, we got Iraqi employees dying over and over and we can't continue to build buildings that are going to be destroyed over and over again" |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Halcyon
Bechtel was the only stand-up company that had the balls to finally say after only two years: "You know what?! Fuck this shit, we don't care how juicy the government no-bid contract is over here, we got Iraqi employees dying over and over and we can't continue to build buildings that are going to be destroyed over and over again" |
...Must have been before the "surge", 'cause as I'm sure you know, Baghdad is pretty much Never-Neverland now. Just ask Vacate (The Turd) and John McCain...they'll tell you all about it... :D
(just don't bring up "diplomacy" or the "Powell Doctrine"...VTT might have an "accident"...):
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
Have you heard the Word? Vacate's a TURD!
Vacate: The :shit:
Don't bring up the "Powell Doctrine"...it makes Vacate (the Turd) "vacate" into his poopie panties... :shit: |
Vacated Turd :shit: ----------> :love: <--------- MCDikey-Dike 69K :hitler: |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
...Must have been before the "surge", 'cause as I'm sure you know, Baghdad is pretty much Never-Neverland now. Just ask Vacate (The Turd) and John McCain...they'll tell you all about it... :D
(just don't bring up "diplomacy" or the "Powell Doctrine"...VTT might have an "accident"...):
Vacated Turd :shit: ----------> :love: <--------- MCDikey-Dike 69K :hitler: |
Look it up... 2 years or less into the war... Bechtel takes off from Iraq...
The only company with balls... and you should have seen the bush supporters on here |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Halcyon
... and you should have seen the bush supporters on here |
...denial or rationalization? Lemme guess...both? |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
...denial or rationalization? Lemme guess...both? |
HAHAHAHAHA Spin Spin Spin Spin.... Spin Spin Spin Spin.... Spin Spin Spin Spin.... Spin Spin Spin Spin.... |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Halcyon
HAHAHAHAHA Spin Spin Spin Spin.... Spin Spin Spin Spin.... Spin Spin Spin Spin.... Spin Spin Spin Spin.... |
:lol: |
|
|
|
|
|
