Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-08-2009, 10:02 AM
 
439 posts, read 616,928 times
Reputation: 157

Advertisements

This is what you get when you put a Democrat in charge of the White House. Our military with out Equipment to fight a war.


Welcome to Jimmy Carter 2

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/as_us_afghanistan_troops/2009/05/07/211999.html (broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-08-2009, 10:25 AM
 
1,902 posts, read 2,468,156 times
Reputation: 543
It's only going to get worse as they not only cut the military budget but then spend what's left on home town pork rather than what the military actually needs and asks for.

We need to get out of Afghan rather than building up only to cut and run when it becomes unpopular and people have died for nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2009, 01:20 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,874,717 times
Reputation: 14345
It's not a funding problem at all. It's a logistical problem. The equipment is being shipped in, but because of the limited number of places to ship to, the equipment is being shipped in after the soldiers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2009, 01:35 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 37,045,063 times
Reputation: 15038
Oh, puleeze!

I suppose it was the Democrats that didn't supply enough body armor in Iraq.

I suppose it was the Democrats that was late in providing up-armored HUMVEES!

As for the budget cuts, unless you think that scrapping a new Presidential helicopter, curtailing the F-22, and cutting "Star Wars" is going to hurt ground troops?

You guys not only can't mount a decent argument you can't even get your facts straight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2009, 02:32 PM
 
Location: Home, Home on the Front Range
25,826 posts, read 20,700,795 times
Reputation: 14818
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Order View Post
This is what you get when you put a Democrat in charge of the White House. Our military with out Equipment to fight a war.


Welcome to Jimmy Carter 2

Newsmax.com - Gates: Troops Facing Taliban Without Equipment (http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/as_us_afghanistan_troops/2009/05/07/211999.html - broken link)
This is what you get when a republican is in charge:

"One soldier said troops were forced to root through rubbish to reinforce their armoured vehicles.
"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmour our vehicles?" Army Spc Thomas Wilson asked.""


BBC NEWS | Middle East | Troops grill Rumsfeld over Iraq
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2009, 02:34 PM
 
5,165 posts, read 6,052,273 times
Reputation: 1072
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
It's not a funding problem at all. It's a logistical problem. The equipment is being shipped in, but because of the limited number of places to ship to, the equipment is being shipped in after the soldiers.
Exactly right. does that make it a bigger blunder though?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2009, 02:37 PM
 
Location: Home, Home on the Front Range
25,826 posts, read 20,700,795 times
Reputation: 14818
Quote:
Originally Posted by coastalrap View Post
It's only going to get worse as they not only cut the military budget but then spend what's left on home town pork rather than what the military actually needs and asks for.

We need to get out of Afghan rather than building up only to cut and run when it becomes unpopular and people have died for nothing.

President Obama has proposed an increase in the military budget.

" The Obama administration has given the Pentagon a $527 billion limit, excluding war costs, for its fiscal 2010 defense budget, an official with the White House’s Office of Management and Budget said Monday.
If enacted, that would be an 8 percent increase from the $487.7 billion allocated for fiscal 2009, and it would match what the Bush administration estimated last year for the Pentagon in fiscal 2010.
So Obama proposes that the U.S. spend $40 billion more this year than it spent last year. "


The "defense cut" falsehood from The Washington Post and Robert Kagan - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2009, 02:40 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,874,717 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleanhouse View Post
Exactly right. does that make it a bigger blunder though?

Logistical problems aren't blunders at all. They are logistical problems.
You can posit that the equipment should have been sent in first. Which could lead to another logistical problem--where to put that equipment? How to get that equipment into storage? How to guard that equipment?

Given the ramp-up in Taliban activity, the DOD has to make choices about where to deploy manpower. Having troops on the ground move equipment around and guard it probably isn't an ideal use of manpower.

Bringing in more manpower first, resolves the storage problem and the other issues. It's not an ideal solution, but then logistics doesn't seek ideal solutions, only the most practical solutions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2009, 07:01 PM
 
946 posts, read 2,604,208 times
Reputation: 509
The American Culture of War: The ... - Google Book Search

In General and Army Chief of Staff Matthew Ridgway's words, why he did not want to involve the American military in Vietnam. Although his observations (derived from actual combat experience, unlike our current corp of **s kissing chicken s*** generals) relate to Vietnam's jungle environment, his prescient words should be read and his procedures before we decide to involve ourselves in any military operation. We are flying in the face of hard-earned experience by past American combat troops and leaders and our current military is paying dearly for this wilfull ignorance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:32 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top