Some critics contend that, contrary to what Rumsfeld told Wilson,
America is not going to war with the Army equipment it already has.
They claim that vested interests at the Pentagon are sometimes
obstructing the best firepower and equipment available. Why? In part
because the Pentagon is still obsessed with its "lighter, faster"
vision and is hyping new, ill-tested armaments like the Stryker
fighting vehicle. Much older equipment, like treaded M113 personnel
carriers, lies unused in arms "boneyards" although they could be up-
armored far more cheaply than Humvees. msnbc.com
Stop me when you've had enough, Tommy
And this is the Presidents fault? Even you should be able to see this
one John Boy
Still waiting for my answer
Some critics contend that, contrary to what Rumsfeld told Wilson,
America is not going to war with the Army equipment it already has.
They claim that vested interests at the Pentagon are sometimes
obstructing the best firepower and equipment available. Why? In
part
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...> wrote:
because the Pentagon is still obsessed with its "lighter, faster"
vision and is hyping new, ill-tested armaments like the Stryker
fighting vehicle. Much older equipment, like treaded M113 personnel
carriers, lies unused in arms "boneyards" although they could be up-
armored far more cheaply than Humvees. msnbc.com
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...>
wrote:
And this is the Presidents fault? Even you should be able to see
this
one John Boy
Still waiting for my answer
You have your answer. A while back I said that Clinton created a
surplus and you jumped up and said it was the republican congress,
not Clinton. Now you say it was Clinton who descimated the military
while working with a republican congress? Tommy, Tommy, Tommy, you
can't have it both ways. Take some fucking responsibility. Why can't
anbody in your party even consider that they are wrong when it is so
obvious that they so often are?
W had 3+ years to build up his army for his private little war. If
you bothered to look at the numbers I posted you will see that it
pretty much is private.
>
> Some critics contend that, contrary to what Rumsfeld told
Wilson,
> America is not going to war with the Army equipment it already
has.
> They claim that vested interests at the Pentagon are sometimes
> obstructing the best firepower and equipment available. Why? In
part
> because the Pentagon is still obsessed with its "lighter,
faster"
> vision and is hyping new, ill-tested armaments like the Stryker
> fighting vehicle. Much older equipment, like treaded M113
personnel
> carriers, lies unused in arms "boneyards" although they could be
up-
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tghysel" <tghysel@y...> wrote:
> armored far more cheaply than Humvees. msnbc.com
Our presence in IRAQ is debateable, and there are merits to both arguments. But, not having proper armor for our troops must be a failed responsibility of the Commander in Chief. In World War II the Bristish sent out the HMS Hood Battlecruiser that was still being finished (construction men on board) along with the Prince of Wales to engage the new German threat the Bismarck. The Hood was only a Battle Cruiser, fast, but less heavily armored than Bismarck. Now the threat to the Bristish Navy was very severe and it was though that the Hood and the POW could at least slow down the Bismarck and the Prince Eugen (German battlecruiser with Bismarck). Indirectly they did as one minor hit by the POW caused an oil leak in Bismarck that was part of the reason for their sailing towards brest (France-then occupied by Germany) but the Hood was lost immediately as it was not strong enough for the Bismarck. Now th eoverall gain of slowing down the Bismarck way have made sense when viewed in history, but in IRAQ I don;t think we have a similar situation. We could of easily waited a few weeks until we had proper armor for the troops. If George W Bush wasn't informed of this problem in advance he needs new advisors; if he was, he made a major error that caused uneeded casualties.
···
From: "John" <three2theroyal@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FREEvpFREE] Re: Stop me when you've had enough, Tommy
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 23:58:01 -0000--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tghysel" <tghysel@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John" <three2theroyal@y...>
wrote:
>
> And this is the Presidents fault? Even you should be able to see
this
> one John Boy
> Still waiting for my answerYou have your answer. A while back I said that Clinton created a
surplus and you jumped up and said it was the republican congress,
not Clinton. Now you say it was Clinton who descimated the military
while working with a republican congress? Tommy, Tommy, Tommy, you
can't have it both ways. Take some fucking responsibility. Why can't
anbody in your party even consider that they are wrong when it is so
obvious that they so often are?
W had 3+ years to build up his army for his private little war. If
you bothered to look at the numbers I posted you will see that it
pretty much is private.> >
> > Some critics contend that, contrary to what Rumsfeld told
Wilson,
> > America is not going to war with the Army equipment it already
has.
> > They claim that vested interests at the Pentagon are sometimes
> > obstructing the best firepower and equipment available. Why? In
> part
> > because the Pentagon is still obsessed with its "lighter,
faster"
> > vision and is hyping new, ill-tested armaments like the Stryker
> > fighting vehicle. Much older equipment, like treaded M113
personnel
> > carriers, lies unused in arms "boneyards" although they could be
up-
> > armored far more cheaply than Humvees. msnbc.com
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "pesach kremen"
<royalflush2222@h...> wrote:
Our presence in IRAQ is debateable, and there are merits to both
arguments. But, not having proper armor for our troops must be a
failed responsibility of the Commander in Chief. We could of easily
waited a few weeks until we had proper armor for the troops.
I have to wonder why the armor issue is even being discussed by
anyone anywhere. Of all the thousands of important combat decisions
being made over there and at the Pentagon on a daily basis regarding
Iraq, Afghanastan, Korea, and anywhere else we have troops either
fighting or on alert, leave it to the sour-grapes democrats to
continue to bring this thing up. It'll all blow over--just like it
did as Kerry got scolded in the campaign by those who dug up his
voting record against helping supply our troops.
Where do you get the idea it was OK to simply 'wait a couple of
weeks' to begin ANY operation on the battlefield? These suicidal
animals with rifles and RPG's PREY on weaknesses, and they get their
strength from all of you liberals over here who weaken our Government
and Military with all the after-the-fact criticizms. It's awful
curious that the only victories the 'insurgents' and terrorists get
from this struggle are from the terror and weakness for war the
liberals constantly blab about in the media that the American people
have. Some day you'll understand that the only way to defeat these
barbarians is to wipe them off the face of the earth with full force.
You want to negotiate with them and show some of that famous
democratic T-O-L-E-R-A-N-C-E, see how far you get. I think you do
know better.