|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228 |
Originally posted by sigma:
Originally posted by Andy W.:
Originally posted by sigma:
Quote:
You aren't supposed to start making things after you out. You are supposed to have reserve ready.
Well hell. Let's just have one tank for every person in the Army then. Can't go wrong with too many of 'em!
Nice slippery slope. Although entirely off base.
You obviously have no idea the time it takes to get a project rolling in the gov't. First the RFS, then the bid time, then the design faze, then the infrastructure setup and material aquisitions. Then the personal aqusition and training, and finally they start. Private industry can get things done in a fraction of that time frame, but thanks to gov't tape it's not nearly that fast.
-Andy
Seeing that I've consulted on a number of projects regarding logistics for the DoD, DoT, and DHS I know quite well what is involved in military acquisition and deployment, thank you.
My point was supposed to be sarcasm, I thought that much was obvious. Fact is, the number of available tanks has never been a significant issue in Iraq this time around. Getting them to where they're needed at a particular time is another story.
Well, again, time for a little perspective. I was at Scania for the majority of my deployment. During that time, we did not have one Abrams, Bradley, or any other fighting vehicle heavier than a HMMWV. We didn't even have defensive mortar crews until mid-2004. Heaviest weapon on post was MK-19 Grenade machine gun. Nearly every logistical support item that went to Baghdad and North came through Scania.
Why weren't those defensive capabilities there? Lack of equipment (tanks go down for maintainance, and that takes a huge toll on your combat readiness) and trainted troops.
95 Contour SE ATX V6- SOLD
2001.5 VW Passat GLX V6 Tiptronic
2004 Honda VTX 1800N1
There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Quote:
Well, again, time for a little perspective. I was at Scania for the majority of my deployment. During that time, we did not have one Abrams, Bradley, or any other fighting vehicle heavier than a HMMWV. We didn't even have defensive mortar crews until mid-2004. Heaviest weapon on post was MK-19 Grenade machine gun. Nearly every logistical support item that went to Baghdad and North came through Scania.
Why weren't those defensive capabilities there? Lack of equipment (tanks go down for maintainance, and that takes a huge toll on your combat readiness) and trainted troops.
Note that I specifically stated that getting tanks to where they were needed was a problem (lack of crew, logistics, maintenace). I was disputing the comment that we didn't have enough tanks available in the first place.
We deployed less than 1/4 of our total Abrams and Bradleys to Iraq at the beginning of the invasion and while no numbers exist on the reduction since then it is purported to be "dramatically reduced" from that number. So if you didn't see any, don't blame it on them not existing, blame it on whomever decided how many you needed.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,241
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,241 |
Har, small world, my brother just arrived in Scania, just for a nights sleep, continuing elsewhere. i found it interesting anyhow Quote:
In response to
Poster: sigma
Subject: Re: Last ime Issues, this time FACTS...
Quote:
Well, again, time for a little perspective. I was at Scania for the majority of my deployment. During that time, we did not have one Abrams, Bradley, or any other fighting vehicle heavier than a HMMWV. We didn't even have defensive mortar crews until mid-2004. Heaviest weapon on post was MK-19 Grenade machine gun. Nearly every logistical support item that went to Baghdad and North came through Scania.
Why weren't those defensive capabilities there? Lack of equipment (tanks go down for maintainance, and that takes a huge toll on your combat readiness) and trainted troops.
Note that I specifically stated that getting tanks to where they were needed was a problem (lack of crew, logistics, maintenace). I was disputing the comment that we didn't have enough tanks available in the first place.
We deployed less than 1/4 of our total Abrams and Bradleys to Iraq at the beginning of the invasion and while no numbers exist on the reduction since then it is purported to be "dramatically reduced" from that number. So if you didn't see any, don't blame it on them not existing, blame it on whomever decided how many you needed.
your point had a funny way of not existing in that babble.
-Matt
"Pain heals, chicks dig scars, and glory lasts forever!"
will do/pay just about anything for the following parts:
CF sunroof glass replacement
OEM CF trunk
Non OEM style cf or fiberglass hood not the cf1 design
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228 |
I would hardly want more than 1/4 of our tanks there, rather that 1/4 of our tanks would equal a much larger number. Had we higher numbers, maint would not have been a factor. There are issues in the world other than Iraq, and therefore our tanks are needed other places (not to mention training requirements). Did the military drawdown under Bush I and Clinton save us $$? Absolutely. Was it smart? I think not.
95 Contour SE ATX V6- SOLD
2001.5 VW Passat GLX V6 Tiptronic
2004 Honda VTX 1800N1
There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 753
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 753 |
Originally posted by Sandman333:
Well, again, time for a little perspective. I was at Scania for the majority of my deployment. During that time, we did not have one Abrams, Bradley, or any other fighting vehicle heavier than a HMMWV. We didn't even have defensive mortar crews until mid-2004. Heaviest weapon on post was MK-19 Grenade machine gun. Nearly every logistical support item that went to Baghdad and North came through Scania.
Why weren't those defensive capabilities there? Lack of equipment (tanks go down for maintainance, and that takes a huge toll on your combat readiness) and trainted troops.
If the military was gutted during the Clinton years then why didn't Bush make it a priority to fix it? Funny, but I don't remember him making an issue of it during his first campaign or during his presidency.
One thing I do remember is military leaders stating that we would need around 300,000 troops to do the job in Iraq. The "military experts" in the Bush administration thought the job could be done with less than half that.
Also if he thought the military didn't have enough troops or equipment, why did he launch a major offensive in Iraq, when we hadn't even finished the job in Afganistan. Starting two wars without adequate troops or equipment seems a little irresponsible.
What do I know though, I'm not an expert like you.
Dueling Duratecs
'95 SE V6 MTX 0 Mods
'04 Mazda6 S Wagon
'03 Kawasaki Z1000
But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!
Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 1,228 |
he only knows what he is told by his military advisors, the principle here being Rumsfeld. I'd like to see Rumsfeld fired. I consider myself an expert because I spent 14 months over there. I have firsthand experience.
95 Contour SE ATX V6- SOLD
2001.5 VW Passat GLX V6 Tiptronic
2004 Honda VTX 1800N1
There are no stupid questions.
There are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 294
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 294 |
I'm an International Relations major so I know something on this subject. First, with the end of the Cold War, it was a given that there would be a sizeable reduction in the military and defense spending. This would have been the case, Republican or Democrat. Also, revisionist history says we won the Cold War because we out spent the former Soviet Union. So what does that mean? Well a popular term that still carries some weight today is "imperial overreach". If you study modern history back to the Peace of Westphalia from the 1400's on to the present, you will see an interesting "rising and fallling" of the major "great powers" or nation-states. An interesting factor worth studying is the relationship between miltary might vs an economic powerhouse. The key is balance. It doesn't matter how strong your military is, if you don't have an economy to support it, you will ultimately decline. Look at the former Soviet Union. They were a military superpower but an economic second world (and argueable a third world) country. What was Great Britain 100 years ago? The sun never set on the British empire....so the saying went. What is Britain now? They owned 2/3rds of the world at one time. Now they are nothing.
There is a very, very good book (although technically hard to read) called "The Rising of Falling of the Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy. He is British but this book became required reading for Clinton's presidential cabinet. Go read it.
Now, do not assume I am Democrat by any means. I am not. I am Republic and favor a strong military but I am also cautious about imperial overreach. I think we find ourselves in that situation today.
My main quival with the Iraq war is that we were lead into war under false pretenses. There WAS some question whether Iraq really had any substantial WMD's. Bush discarded all dissenting opinions and followed through unilaterally on a PREMPTIVE strike. That is unprecedented. There was no international community behind us nor was there any imminent threat on National Security. Consequently, Bush has upset the "BALANCE OF POWERS" in the region and has created a power vaccume. Iraq may have been evil but it kept in check Iran. And Saudi Arabia relied on the US for protection. Now that threat is gone and we are no longer needed and ironically enough, despised.
Now I'm not saying I would never have supported the Iraq war under any circumstances. I'm just saying we rushed to war and were mislead by our President. To me, there is a huge credibility gap no matter what the outcome in Iraq may be. That is why I am voting for Kerry and for a Democrat for the first time in my life. Besides, I think Kerry is centrast enough despite claims of being the liberals liberal. I actually think we need a guy who "flip flops". What is so noble about Bush's steadfastness??? You can be so darn convinced you are right and be wrong. He never second guessed anything.
Now the damage is done. We have no choice but see the Iraq war through. Iraq is sitting on the world's biggest oil reserves. As gas approaches $2.25 a gallon to fill up yer car, don't think the situation is ever going to get any better later on down the line. America's dependence on oil won't go away until we turn back into the stone age. So we have no choice but to protect our huge consumer economy. Hey, I like my fast cars too.
But sooner or later perhaps the Iraq situation had to be dealt with. In my classes in school back in 1994 as we studied the aftermath of the cold war, America's next big threat was seen to be the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism. I guess we are dealing with that today. It's a complex political world in a chaotic arena of nation-states and even though nothing is black and white, I will say that Bush is very unintellectual. I don't think he's stupid, but he puts no faith in political theory and instead relies more upon his religious convictions. And although George W's personal religious morals may be noble (and much needed following the Clinton administration) I think his religious ideology clouds his judgment. At least Clinton was intellectual enough and well read enough to see the world in a secular vein.
Kerry is the better man. That's my two cents.
No matter what, vote your conscience.
Peace
stock 1998 silver frost SVT E0 #1545 out of 6535
* K&N drop-in air filter
* DMD
* Koni's w/ stock springs
* Autolite double platinum
* Tranny cocktail
* Mobil 1 Snyth Oil @ 60K miles
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by holycowSVTpaul:
My main quival with the Iraq war is that we were lead into war under false pretenses. There WAS some question whether Iraq really had any substantial WMD's. Bush discarded all dissenting opinions and followed through unilaterally on a PREMPTIVE strike. That is unprecedented. There was no international community behind us nor was there any imminent threat on National Security. Consequently, Bush has upset the "BALANCE OF POWERS" in the region and has created a power vaccume. Iraq may have been evil but it kept in check Iran. And Saudi Arabia relied on the US for protection. Now that threat is gone and we are no longer needed and ironically enough, despised.
False pretenses...yes as confirmed by Duelfer (sp?) report. But, as the report spells out, the false pretenses were generated by SADAM who, until late 2002 had even his senior cabinet & generals convinced he had WMD! So it comes as no great suprise that the 4 best intel agencies in the WORLD (CIA, Brit MI-5, Israeli Massad, former KGB) all came to the same conclusion...and that ALL world leaders believed this..Anan, Chirac, Shreoder, Putin, Clinton, Bush, and yes Kerry..to a man believed the data.
So, the lies were NOT generated by the Bush admin. And because their was widespread belief we cannot use THIS as the reason that we did not have UN support. We can argue that they really did want more time for inspecters to clarify the status of WMD. But given the past failure over 7 years of inspection (befor we were booted), numerous documented deceptions, and the VAST size of Iraq, is it reasonable to conclude continued inspections would have preduced a clear answer. Unlikely. But even if it theoretically could have..it was doomed to fail. Because the report now also spells out that the French, Russians, and senior UN officials were working WITH SADAM for the purpose of ending inspections on Sadam's terms. For the express purpose of resuming WMD.
So...check MATE. Inspections continue, Sadam adds billions more to his coffers until they end, and he goes after WMD. Inspections STOP (the more likely event)..hes building WMD. And all along Sadam had assurance of the FRENCH at least that the they would use their VETO to block UN action. All documented. This is the path Kerry said he would have chosen. He would have relied on this corrupt UN to repond to a threat that the whole world percieved. This is true outsourcing of security. He would NEVER invade...he voted in 1991 againt the coalition then when they had INVADED an OPEC ally and we had UN endorsement.
How do you reconsile these FACTS. Forget what your liberal brainwashing PROFs are telling you and think it through!
Yes, bridges are damaged with UN but who is responsible...the US?? or the French who gave Sadam their veto? The Russians who sold arms to Sadam until the INVASION? or The UN official recieving 7 million in oil vouchers? Be HONAST HERE!!
Yes, we fould no WMD. And we did not find out what happened to the equipment at the old nuclear power station that was present on satellite photos (you know the ones Powell showed) that was MISSING whe we got there (an interesting, little publised tidbit in Duelfer's report). But we DID find a massive scheme to make Sadam rich..money we KNOW he used to support terror. Money he had tried to purchace dual use equipement. We found that Sadam planned oneday to use this money to procure WMD. We found a people being starved by rotten food by UN corruption on an unprecedented scale. We found a mass grave last week with ONLY WOMEN AND CHILDREN as young as 2 with a bullet in the head. We found the Ansar Al Islam training camp and Al Queada's Abu Al Zarqawi. We found Salmon Pac traing camp and the airline fuselage used to train "somebody" up til at least late 90s...
And you mention Saudi Arabia...they are killing Al Queda for the first time. And Pakistan has turned from supporting the Taliban and is killing Al Queada "more in last 2 months that we did during 2 years" per a deputy CENTCOM commander.
You mention balance of power & Iran...we are building DEMOCRACIES on either side of it. Balance is going to shift alright...the Mullas are going to have their hands full when 100,000 young Iranians see what is happening next door.
Ignor this vote for Kerry & I submit that ALL that education has failed you.
Peace back at you.
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
 you guys should just admit/accept it already, the evidence didn't support the claims (imminent threat, wmds, nukes, bin laden) back then and what we've learned recently only confirms it. imo the bush admin wanted regime change in iraq (conservatives will swear it was justified because the world is safer without saddam  ) and had no qualms about mis-representing the evidence to achieve it. i can accept that, but then to fcuk it up and allow it to get out of hand just added insult to injury. maybe his intentions are good but bush has been a sub-par cic. i don't consider him the strongest link on his staff and i can't trust that he's the one running the show.
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 753
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 753 |
Originally posted by Sandman333:
he only knows what he is told by his military advisors, the principle here being Rumsfeld. I'd like to see Rumsfeld fired. I consider myself an expert because I spent 14 months over there. I have firsthand experience.
Bush is the only one who can fire Rumsfeld. He's unwilling to do that, therefore Bush is incompetent. You might say unfit for comand .
Dueling Duratecs
'95 SE V6 MTX 0 Mods
'04 Mazda6 S Wagon
'03 Kawasaki Z1000
But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!
Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
