|
I was reacting to mike's message who said our soldiers in Iraq don't even have bullets to fight with. I was just wondering how we won in Iraq with no bullets. WHY DON'T YOU SPEND A LITTLE MORE TIME READING THE FLOW OF MESSAGES AND A LITTLE LESS TIME BEING A JERK TRYING TO INSULT PEOPLE FOR WRONG REASONS. On Aug 28, 8:30 am, UnityNotExtremism <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: Lew... I nominate your post as the STUPID post of the day. On Aug 28, 8:14 am, lewcoop <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: Hey we have won in Iraq with no bullets. Hooooray On Aug 28, 8:11 am, mike532 <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: then show where i am wrong lew and why don't you start by explaining we are so much better off now that we can't even supply all of the bullets we need for Iraq let along the rest of the military . On Aug 28, 9:09 am, lewcoop <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: mike: BULL CRAP: On Aug 28, 8:05 am, mike532 <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: lew our military is in it weakest position in the last 50 years because of the free trade at all cost republicans sending all of our factories over seas . On Aug 28, 9:00 am, lewcoop <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: unitynotextremism: So are you cheering the potential demise of the U.S. Military? Will this demise wait until after Barack Obama finish's iof Afghanistan and then attacks Pakistan and gets Osama bin Laden as he promised? Or will Batrack just say To heck with all that. Let's stop the military and use all the savings for give-aways to the people to keep getting Democrats elected forever - or until some enemy defeats a weakened U.S. and its weakened military. On Aug 28, 7:41 am, UnityNotExtremism <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: And this star wars defense has a very cheap solution to get around. When Poland signed a deal for the missile defense system. Russia has missiles which have the ability to reduce the trajectory to fly under the defense shield..... We spend Billion, where the solution to circumvent it is minimal and relativly cheap. But Cheney and his gang are making money and we'll be taxing our children so he can get paid. We spend thousands to get ONE combat troup into Iraq. And our enemies make a bomb with a little plastic explosives and a phone which all costs less than the price of a pizza to blow him up. On Aug 28, 7:30 am, mike532 <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: it wasn't president carter who pumped billions of tax payer dolars into star wars that was ole ronnie ray gun On Aug 28, 8:22 am, lewcoop <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: mike: What you give Ronald Reagan credit for, the author of the article gives Jimmy Carter credit for - before Reagan. who you cite. Anyway, you are talking 20-32 years ago. Today is today - with the leanest, meanest, battle-hardened fighting force on the earth used to fighting suicide attacks and rockets and bombs on a local front. We have the toughened military and the strategy developed - which took a while to develop. We are also ready for nuclear threats from all the countries you hope get nuclear weapons to fight against the United Sttes, Mike. The United States is, today: THE POLICEMAN FOR THE PLANET EARTH !!! Under Barack Obama: ???????????? On Aug 28, 6:23 am, mike532 <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: [ first they will cut the things they don't want - systems such as missile defense, space-_base_d weapons, that do not work and have cost billions of dollars and hopefully modernized nuclear forces. ] one can only hope they do cut these failed projects from the Ronnie ray gun era On Aug 28, 7:13 am, lewcoop <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: August 26, 2008 townhall.com by James Jay Carafano, Ph.D. After the Vietnam War, respect for the military sank to an all-time low. In one survey, sanitation workers were the only profession Americans thought less of - and some considered that an insult to sanitation workers. Defense spending plummeted. The armed services hollowed out, lacking the budgets to sustain modernization, training and readiness. By the end of the 1980s, however, after the Reagan-era military build- up, the military polled as the most admired institution in the nation. Even today, despite the political debates over the Long War on Terrorism, the armed forces remain highly respected. For that reason, many Pentagon experts believe that after Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress and the White House won't abandon the military they way they did before. They won't put readiness at risk again, right? Wrong. There are already plenty of troubling signs. The Navy is talking about tying up ships because they don't have enough sailors. The Army has artillery and engineer battalions that haven't practiced firing cannons or breaching a minefield in a long time. The Air Force might well have just lost its service secretary and chief of staff, not because of their alleged failure to exercise leadership but because they chaffed at accepting unrealistic budget projections. Washington officials probably will use the same excuses they did after Vietnam to justify reneging on their obligation to provide for the common defense. They will argue that they can spend less on defense because they're so smart. They know exactly what the future holds, what the threats will be, how to handle them - and, miraculously, the cost of this defense will be exactly the paltry amount of money they're willing to spend. Such smart spending was what the Pentagon offered after Vietnam. Rather than rebuild the military and match the Soviets' conventional power, President Carter's Pentagon opted for an offset strategy. They would replace boots on the ground with smart weapons to offset Soviet numbers. This would be more effective - and coincidently cheaper. As Yale scholar Paul Bracken put it, They got away with it because President Carter didn't want to buy anything. He was very interested in innovation as long as it didn't require purchasing military equipment. Some old Carter hands even have the temerity to argue the offset strategy helped win the Cold War. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of the technologies they promoted never matured, or were fully deployed only after the Cold War ended. Indeed, Council on Foreign Relations defense analyst Stephen Biddle cogently argues much of the success of rebuilding of U.S. conventional forces had to do with the robust training and doctrine instituted in the 1980s, part of the Reagan-era effort along with growing the forces and buying new equipment that resulted in the war-winning Desert Storm military. There are already signs, however, that the old Carter arguments are coming back. Very smart people will argue that Washington can gut budgets; ignore the need to buy next generation platforms; and short- change training and maintenance because they know exactly what to cut. Of course, first they will cut the things they don't want - politically incorrect systems such as missile defense, space-_base_d weapons, and modernized nuclear forces. Then they will wish away the wars they don't want to prepare for - insurgencies and conventional
... read more »
|
Favoured: 0
