Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: Officials: Obama to Leave Up to 50K Troops in Iraq Through 2011

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Officials: Obama to Leave Up to 50K Troops in Iraq Through 2011

    Further proof that the election just meant changing the (R) to a (D). I didn't want to believe it, but the evidence is beginning to stack. I'll give him a few more months before I really lay into him though.

    I am very disappointed in this particular campaign promise being broken. It was never really set in stone, Obama did say later in his campaign that he would have to examine the situation and make clarified decisions later on, but he did definitely give everyone the impression that he was more than likely going to stick to his original plan.

    *is glad he is "Moderate" so he can call bull**** no matter who is in office*

  2. #32
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,056

    Re: Officials: Obama to Leave Up to 50K Troops in Iraq Through 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post

    I am very disappointed in this particular campaign promise being broken.
    It's merely the difference between being in the dark about details and other issues a starry eyed politician can't know and all of a sudden being informed.

    Iraq is and has always been key to this region's true stability and our long term security and welfare. And not simply for "WMD" as the critics bogged themselves in for years and years as the truth escaped them. President Obama has opened his eyes. It's not about the politician. It's about the game that many deny.

    I would think that more people would choose to actually learn more than the headline sensationalism they cater to now that they are faced with a Democrat not straying too far from the former's path.
    Last edited by MSgt; 02-28-09 at 01:42 AM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Officials: Obama to Leave Up to 50K Troops in Iraq Through 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by Triad View Post
    You didn't read what I said. Or simply misunderstood it.

    What you said there I agree with...
    What you said is not in contradiction to what I said.
    Sorry if I misunderstood you.

  4. #34
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,767

    Re: Officials: Obama to Leave Up to 50K Troops in Iraq Through 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by GottaHurt View Post
    They're E.T.O.'s.

    Emergency Tactical Observers



    "Fags"


    Former Action Guys.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  5. #35
    Sexual Deviant
    GottaHurt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    05-07-09 @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,899

    Re: Officials: Obama to Leave Up to 50K Troops in Iraq Through 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt View Post
    This is priceless. And did anybody hear what they are saying about the F-22 now on top of this? Hmmm...I wonder where people here would have heard such things over the last two years. Heed the lesson. I know what I'm talking about.

    I did, at $300 mil a pop, it's on the chopping block, supposedly because it wasn't designed to fight insurgents.

    Our next generation of fighter being axed, probably one the reasons they made the military sign secrecy pledges on the military budget.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...t-process.html

    Just like Carter, Obama will hose the military.
    Pain can be such a beautiful thing

  6. #36
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,764

    Re: Officials: Obama to Leave Up to 50K Troops in Iraq Through 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    Further proof that the election just meant changing the (R) to a (D). I didn't want to believe it, but the evidence is beginning to stack. I'll give him a few more months before I really lay into him though.

    I am very disappointed in this particular campaign promise being broken. It was never really set in stone, Obama did say later in his campaign that he would have to examine the situation and make clarified decisions later on, but he did definitely give everyone the impression that he was more than likely going to stick to his original plan.

    *is glad he is "Moderate" so he can call bull**** no matter who is in office*
    Not me. I jumped on Bush early, and was heavily attacked for doing so. Why did I do it? Because Bush didn't fool me. Obama didn't fool me either, so I guess I'll be paying the price attacking Obama for the next few years until I am vindicated again, which I will be. It's only a matter of time.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  7. #37
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,056

    Re: Officials: Obama to Leave Up to 50K Troops in Iraq Through 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by GottaHurt View Post
    I did, at $300 mil a pop, it's on the chopping block, supposedly because it wasn't designed to fight insurgents.

    Our next generation of fighter being axed, probably one the reasons they made the military sign secrecy pledges on the military budget.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...t-process.html

    Just like Carter, Obama will hose the military.
    You're looking at this wrong. Unlike Carter, Obama seems to have someone in his ear that knows the very real difference between the "Defense Industry" and the "Military." For example; the "military" needed body armor in 2003. The "Defense Industry" wanted to make F/A-22s. And Obama, unlike Clinton too, seems to understand the difference. Our military can beat insurgencies, ragtag bands of thugs, dictators, and conventional arms...but it can't seem to beat Lockheed Martin, Boeing, or Northrop Grumman. I'll give you another example....

    - A new generation of refeuling aircraft was based on outright fraud during Rumsfeld's Pentagon. The Air Force insisted that this program was needed urgently and it involved extremely lucrative deals for executives and longevity contracts. Lobbyist managed to almost convince the idiot politicians that "nothing is too good for our military" until a few investigated more closely. McCain, Gramm, Warner, Lieberman, and some others defended the military from this gross waste of our funds and had the program scrapped.


    As for the F/A-22, consider its history and function. Originally the F-22, it was created to dog fight Soviet fighters. After the Cold War, it was redesignated the F/A-22 to imply a ground attack role. Politicians bought off on it (because "nothing is too good for our troops") and it was equipped with a few bombs. The problem with this is that it carries a far lesser payload, burns fuel faster, and in many cases has been treated as too expensive to risk in combat (Our air support in Afghanistan and Iraq has come from good old fashioned inexpensive bombers) Also because of its advanced technology, the Air Force was embarrased over the skies of India in early 2004 when it engaged in war games with the Indian Air Force. We lost. Because we underestimated the Indians, we turned off the part of the electronics suite on each of our fighters to protect classified capabilities. But what was the Air Force's attitude? Train our pilots better? No. As always, their answer was "buy a new plane." And that's exactly what they did with upgrades to the F/A-22. We have cheaper, far more practical and useful aircraft in our arsenol like the A-10. The F-22 is a Lamborghini at a time when we need more pickup trucks.




    Rumsfeld promised to transform the military via the RMA (RMA sucks by the way). Not only was it a lie, but it was a pathetic display of ignorance I have ever seen in a SECDEF. A transformation would have had to begin with the outright cancellation of platinum-plated Cold War-era systems such as the F-22 or Virginia class nuclear submarines designed to fight a non-existent Soviet Navy. He declined to cancel a single big ticket weapons system. And this goes back to the first Bush days. And what was the military looking to get in 2003 that seemed entirely out of grasp? Some simple body armor....something the cops of New York City have had for decades. The ignorant critic, protestor, and rival politician used "body armor" as a tool in which to criticize Bush as if we had body armor for Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, Gulf War, etc. If they really cared about the troop instead of using him for political points they would have criticized the gross output of money towards unnecessary toys that keep the business dictating the wars they want us to fight instead of the wars we are going to fight.

    They may as well invest in laser blasters in case the Empire arrives in our galaxy.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  8. #38
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,056

    Re: Officials: Obama to Leave Up to 50K Troops in Iraq Through 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Not me. I jumped on Bush early, and was heavily attacked for doing so. Why did I do it? Because Bush didn't fool me. Obama didn't fool me either, so I guess I'll be paying the price attacking Obama for the next few years until I am vindicated again, which I will be. It's only a matter of time.
    Dude, you weren't vindicated. You're still refusing the big picture game. Bush knew things you didn't. And now, even with Obama's record of defying everything Bush, even he realizes a few things now.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  9. #39
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-23-17 @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,429
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Officials: Obama to Leave Up to 50K Troops in Iraq Through 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt View Post
    You're looking at this wrong. Unlike Carter, Obama seems to have someone in his ear that knows the very real difference between the "Defense Industry" and the "Military." For example; the "military" needed body armor in 2003. The "Defense Industry" wanted to make F/A-22s. And Obama, unlike Clinton too, seems to understand the difference. Our military can beat insurgencies, ragtag bands of thugs, dictators, and conventional arms...but it can't seem to beat Lockheed Martin, Boeing, or Northrop Grumman. I'll give you another example....
    Hopefully the F/A-22 does get scrapped. With the JSF, a designed multi-role combat aircraft that is going to replace a ton of strike fighter aircraft amongst the three services that will use them(USAF,USN,USMC), we get more bang for our buck, as well as a streamlined supply system. I believe that the JSF is going to replace the F/A-18 C & D models in the USN and USMC. It will replace the Harriers in the USMC, and I believe it is slated to replace either F-15 or 16 in the USAF. There are three different models, for each service, due to the different nature of the branches(Marines get the VTOL, USN has reinforced landing gears for ship landings) but the supply system should be made up of roughly 90% of the same replacement parts. I can't speak for the USN or USAF, but I know the Marines will be using this strike fighter in XCAS missions for ground support. The avionics on the JSF will be superior enough that it should be able to knock any foreign made aircraft out of the air, and it will have heavy enough payload delivery to be an effective air support weapon(although not as effective as the A-10, which why does the airforce have those, and not the Marines?).

    What needs updating more than anything IMO, is troop movement equipment.The Osprey is a good tool for the future, but there are still old helicopters and C-130s that only the saltiest Generals have been around longer than. I am not sure what the GCE needs for troop movement.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  10. #40
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,056

    Re: Officials: Obama to Leave Up to 50K Troops in Iraq Through 2011

    Quote Originally Posted by WI Crippler View Post
    What needs updating more than anything IMO, is troop movement equipment.

    Definately.

    9/11 forced this country to address the military's demands and needs. Our new communications systems are well beyond the capabilities we were used to. Our weapons systems are far more effective and practical to today's needs. Were it not for the pettyness of politicians to pull each other down, BodyArmor would still be a Police thing and not a military thing. The individual "soldier" has new uniforms and more comfortable battle gear. The Osprey is answering the call for upgraded helicopter support. Though we've largely lost Naval Gunfire as a tool, our air support fills the role quite well (without the F/A-22).

    Today's bigger issues include troop transport. You are absolutely right. Our HMMWVs are old and damaged...ironically largely because of the heavy UpArmor placed on them. The new MRAP, while definately saving and protecting lives, is cumbersome, heavy, and slow.

    It's amazing how they have gotten away with it year after year. I think often how the Gulf War set us back. The only thing politicians and civilians came away with was the thought that we can win our future wars simply by bombing the enemy into submission and gathering up prisoners with little blood shed. The RMA (Revolution of Military Affairs) did not seem to take into consideration that the Gulf War was a wargamer's dream (enemy out in the open desert with no civilians or urban terrain). They completely sought to over haul the idea of the military by abandoning the troop and embracing technology. They invested in the machine rather than the man. And though Rumsfeld was all over this, he wasn't alone. President Clinton loved the idea of bloodless warfare and embarked on foolish programs that included non-lethal weapons for the military. This proves that one of the very few things in the '90s that shoved politicial partisanship aside was the ignorant and non-deliberate focus on ruining the military. Then came 9/11. An unprepared, broken down military (but happy and lucrative Defense Industry) embarked into Afghanistan and later Iraq with no body armor, Vietnam era weapons and helicopters, and torn up NBC suits.

    And privatizing (hate this word) the military? The idea that spending trillions of dollars on contracts that would see civilians botching the job that locals could do successfully for far less? How many of the bored Iraqi youth would have chosen to rebuild their country with the guarantee of wages instead of choosing to destroy outsider efforts to rebuild their country for them? And who knows how much money was spent on civilian re-supply efforts only to see them cower in Kuwait when the war started leading the military to have to travel far behind to establish extended and weakened supply trains (which would be attacked) behind the combat troops. Well, this was a Clinton/Bush thing. Again....a bi-partisan effort to wreck the military.

    All of this is what happens when non-experienced civilians tell other non-experienced civilians what is good for the military leading to other non-experienced civilians to make decisions. And the far worst and unforgivable sad truth is that usually there is a General or an Admiral pampering his future desk at Lockheed Martin or Boeing giving the thumbs up.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •